J.W. v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y of N.Y., Inc.
241 Cal. Rptr. 3d 62
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Plaintiff J.W., through guardian ad litem, sued Watchtower and congregations for negligence, negligent supervision/hiring/retention/failure to warn, sexual battery, and IIED based on childhood sexual abuse by congregant/elder Gilbert Simental.
- Watchtower was ordered (Feb. 11, 2014) to produce documents received in response to a March 14, 1997 Watchtower letter to elders about known molesters (the "1997 Documents").
- Watchtower repeatedly refused or failed to produce the 1997 Documents despite court orders and appellate denial of a writ; the appellate process affirmed the order to produce the materials and dissolved a temporary stay.
- Plaintiff sought terminating sanctions after continued nonproduction; the trial court warned Watchtower, gave a short compliance window, and struck Watchtower’s answer when it still did not produce the documents; default was entered and a damages prove‑up awarded $4,016,152.39.
- Watchtower moved for relief/reconsideration arguing technical inability to search electronic files earlier and that sanctions were excessive; the trial court denied relief as untimely, equitable relief unsupported, and because Watchtower was in default.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proximate cause pleaded | J.W.: alleged hierarchical control by Watchtower, Simental’s elder status created access, and Watchtower knew or should have known of his propensities | Watchtower: allegations insufficient (e.g., slumber party not church‑sponsored; some allegations on information and belief) | Held: FAC sufficiently pleaded cause in fact and legal causation for negligent hiring/retention/supervision theories; proximate cause adequate as alleged. |
| Due process — notice of discovery order | J.W.: court order (minute order and record) provided adequate notice of production obligation | Watchtower: Feb. 11, 2014 order was not in writing and did not rule on objections to RFP 66, so lacked adequate notice | Held: Watchtower understood and litigated the order (moved to set aside, appealed); no due process violation. |
| Appropriateness of terminating sanctions | J.W.: documents were central to negligence claims and punitive damages; lesser sanctions inadequate given prolonged refusal | Watchtower: terminating sanction was extreme; lesser sanctions or issue sanctions (e.g., on duty) would suffice | Held: Court did not abuse discretion. Given long refusal, prior litigation, warning and short compliance opportunity, lesser sanctions would likely be ineffective. |
| Motion for relief/reconsideration from terminating sanctions/default | J.W.: Watchtower’s motion untimely and tactical; lacked excuse for delay | Watchtower: newly developed software post‑sanction allowed production; equitable relief/excusable neglect warrants setting aside sanctions | Held: Motion was untimely as a Code Civ. Proc. §1008 reconsideration (not within 10 days); no excusable neglect or extrinsic mistake shown; motion denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Constr. Co., 5 Cal.5th 216 (California Supreme Court) (employer acts can be the starting point of events leading to molestation)
- State Dept. of State Hospitals v. Superior Court, 61 Cal.4th 339 (California Supreme Court) (proximate cause has factual and policy/legal components; ordinarily a question of fact)
- Evan F. v. Hughson United Methodist Church, 8 Cal.App.4th 828 (Court of Appeal) (church liability under negligent hiring/retention; direct—not vicarious—liability theory)
- Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem, 128 Cal.App.4th 262 (Court of Appeal) (terminating sanctions may be justified where willful discovery abuse and lesser sanctions would not secure compliance)
- Gore v. Witt, 149 Cal.App.2d 681 (Court of Appeal) (on appeal from default judgment, sufficiency of complaint may be considered)