29 Cal.App.5th 1142
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiff J.W., a minor, sued Watchtower and congregations for negligence, negligent supervision/hiring, failure to warn/train, sexual battery, and IIED stemming from sexual molestation by congregant/elder Gilbert Simental. Criminal convictions against Simental occurred.
- J.W. sought production of documents Watchtower requested from local elders in a March 14, 1997 letter (the “1997 Documents”); the trial court compelled production on February 11, 2014.
- Watchtower repeatedly refused or failed to produce the 1997 Documents, unsuccessfully sought to set aside the order, and pursued appellate writ relief (denied).
- After a year of noncompliance, J.W. moved for terminating discovery sanctions; the trial court warned Watchtower, gave a short compliance window, Watchtower did not produce the documents, the court struck Watchtower’s answer and the clerk entered default.
- Watchtower later developed software enabling searches, moved for relief/reconsideration from the terminating sanctions (arguing extrinsic mistake/technical inability), which the trial court denied as untimely and for willful noncompliance.
- On default prove-up the court awarded J.W. $4,016,152.39; Watchtower appealed raising proximate-cause pleading insufficiency, due process, excessive sanctions, and denial of relief from sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of proximate-cause allegations | J.W.: FAC alleges Watchtower’s hierarchical control, that Simental’s elder status gave him access and Watchtower knew or should have known of his propensities, so proximate cause is pled | Watchtower: FAC fails to allege causation (e.g., slumber party not church‑sponsored; allegations on information and belief inadequate) | Held: Allegations suffice; negligent hiring/retention theory and pleaded facts permit a reasonable inference of both factual and legal causation |
| Due process re: February 11, 2014 discovery ruling (written order) | J.W.: (implicit) court order was clear and enforced | Watchtower: Lack of a written, specific order deprived it of notice and due process | Held: No due-process violation; Watchtower understood and litigated the order and unsuccessfully sought relief, so notice was adequate |
| Appropriateness of terminating sanctions | J.W.: Terminating sanctions justified by willful, repeated refusal to comply after orders and appeals; lesser sanctions insufficient | Watchtower: Sanction was extreme; lesser sanctions (monetary or issue-limited) would suffice because documents related only to punitive damages | Held: No abuse of discretion; court permissibly found lesser sanctions would be ineffective given history, warnings, and Watchtower’s refusal to comply |
| Denial of relief/reconsideration from terminating sanctions | J.W.: Motion was untimely and Watchtower knew of technical issues earlier; no excusable mistake | Watchtower: Newly developed search software in March 2015 created changed circumstances and extrinsic mistake warranting relief | Held: Motion was untimely under Code Civ. Proc. §1008 and constituted a change in circumstances, not excusable mistake; relief properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., 5 Cal.5th 216 (discusses causal chain for employer-related liability in sexual molestation context)
- State Dept. of State Hospitals v. Superior Court, 61 Cal.4th 339 (proximate cause has both cause‑in‑fact and policy limits; ordinarily question of fact)
- Mark K. v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, 67 Cal.App.4th 603 (church may be liable where it had reason to be suspicious of clergy’s propensity for pedophilia)
- Evan F. v. Hughson United Methodist Church, 8 Cal.App.4th 828 (negligent hiring/retention is direct employer liability theory; distinction from respondeat superior)
- Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem, 128 Cal.App.4th 262 (terminating sanctions appropriate where willful noncompliance and lesser sanctions unlikely to produce compliance)
- Zelig v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.4th 1112 (properly pled facts are treated as true on sufficiency review)