McFarland v. W. Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Lorain, Ohio, Inc.
60 N.E.3d 39
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff Elizabeth McFarland sued West Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Watchtower, and Christian Congregation alleging negligence, ratification, and concealment of child sexual abuse by a congregant (Scott Silvasy) that occurred 1997–2001.
- McFarland sought discovery from Watchtower and related entities, including responses to a March 14, 1997 Watchtower letter asking local Bodies of Elders to report known child molesters, and a broad range of internal letters/memoranda (1980–2002 and later documents related to Silvasy).
- The trial court ordered production in part after in camera review: ten Service Department letters (Bodies of Elders letters) and fifteen other letters/memoranda; Appellants produced documents under seal and appealed the order as to 19 documents.
- Appellants asserted clergy-penitent privilege, First Amendment church-autonomy protections, attorney-client privilege, and third‑party privacy as grounds to withhold various documents.
- The appellate court reviewed privilege issues de novo, found four documents privileged under the clergy‑penitent statute and/or confidential religious counseling (and therefore not producible), and affirmed production of the remaining documents; it rejected First Amendment and attorney‑client privilege grounds for most documents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the clergy‑penitent privilege protects the Bodies of Elders letters and other documents | McFarland argued the requested documents are relevant and not privileged | Appellants claimed many documents were confidential religious counseling communications protected by R.C. 2317.02(C) | Court: four later letters (documents #183, #185, #186, #187) were privileged; the other fifteen documents were not because they were administrative/secular or not confidential communications for religious counseling |
| Whether production of non‑privileged internal church documents violates the First Amendment (church autonomy) | McFarland: production of non‑privileged, relevant materials is allowed | Appellants: disclosure would intrude on internal discipline, doctrine, and church governance | Court: First Amendment did not bar disclosure of relevant, non‑privileged materials; secular relevance review permissible without resolving doctrinal questions |
| Whether specific documents were protected by attorney‑client privilege | McFarland: documents show internal communications and are discoverable | Appellants: communications involved in‑house legal department and therefore privileged | Court: appellant failed to meet burden; documents were communications among elders not between client and attorney, so common‑law privilege did not apply (appellant waived/failed to preserve privilege for some docs) |
| Scope of trial court’s discovery order and appellate relief | McFarland sought broad production including materials related to Silvasy and general Letters | Appellants sought to limit production to only reports responsive to the 1997 letter and to withhold privileged material | Court: affirmed compelled production of most documents, reversed as to four documents found clergy‑penitent privileged; remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980) (describing the purpose of clergy‑penitent privilege as encouraging confidential spiritual counseling)
- Ward v. Summa Health Sys., 128 Ohio St.3d 212 (2010) (statutory privileges must be strictly construed)
- Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981) (rationale and scope of attorney‑client privilege for corporate communications)
- Varner v. Stovall, 500 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2007) (elements and scope of clergy‑penitent communications; privacy expectation required)
- Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for United States of America and Canada v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696 (1976) (principles of church autonomy and limits on civil adjudication of ecclesiastical matters)
- Med. Mut. of Ohio v. Schlotterer, 122 Ohio St.3d 181 (2009) (abuse of discretion standard for discovery rulings)