Padron v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York
D070723
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 9, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Osbaldo Padron sued Watchtower and a local congregation for childhood sexual abuse claims tied to alleged knowledge and handling of abuser Gonzalo Campos.
- Padron served a document request (Request No.12) seeking responses to Watchtower’s March 14, 1997 “Body of Elders” letter; the request was identical to one at issue in Lopez v. Watchtower.
- The trial court ordered Watchtower to produce responsive documents subject to limited redactions (victim and author identifying data) and a strict confidentiality/nondisclosure protective order.
- Watchtower produced heavily redacted materials, refused to produce documents dated after March 2001 (citing a new corporate entity, CCJW), and repeatedly refused to comply with the court’s post-referee discovery order.
- After multiple unsuccessful challenges, the court imposed monetary sanctions of $2,000/day for failure to search and $2,000/day for failure to produce (total $4,000/day); Watchtower appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court had authority to impose $4,000/day monetary sanctions for discovery noncompliance | Court may impose monetary sanctions tailored to compel compliance; incremental monetary sanctions are appropriate before terminating sanctions | Civil Discovery Act limits monetary sanctions to reasonable expenses (attorney fees); such daily penalties are punitive and unauthorized | Affirmed: court had authority; monetary sanctions are permissible and not precluded by the Discovery Act; judicial estoppel bars Watchtower from contradicting its earlier advocacy for such sanctions in Lopez |
| Whether Watchtower must produce documents after March 2001 (custody/control of CCJW materials) | Padron: Watchtower has access/control of Service Department files and legal department that handles CCJW material; must produce post-2001 documents | Watchtower: CCJW is a separate corporation created in 2001; Watchtower lacks custody/control of post-2001 documents | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports trial court/referee finding Watchtower had custody/control of responsive documents beyond March 2001 |
| Whether production required intrusive inquiry into religious polity (First Amendment) | Production concerns administrative communications about handling known child molesters, not doctrinal matters; court did not need to resolve ecclesiastical issues | Watchtower: order improperly resolves internal religious structure/operations, implicating First Amendment/ministerial matters | Rejected: court did not intrude on ecclesiastical doctrine; Watchtower’s prior representations supported the custody/control finding without resolving theological questions |
| Whether Watchtower acted with substantial justification (privacy/First Amendment) to refuse compliance | Watchtower: redactions and confidentiality insufficient; production would violate third-party privacy, associational anonymity, and free exercise/association rights | Padron: limited redactions plus strict confidentiality order adequately protect privacy; no First Amendment bar to discovery here | Affirmed: court and referee considered and rejected privacy/constitutional claims; Watchtower failed to show substantial justification for noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of New York, Inc., 246 Cal.App.4th 566 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (reversed terminating sanctions but recognized courts may impose incremental monetary penalties for continued discovery noncompliance)
- Pomona Valley Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court, 209 Cal.App.4th 687 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (trial courts have broad discretion to manage discovery)
- Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc., 174 Cal.App.4th 967 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (discovery sanctions follow incremental approach; terminating sanctions appropriate only when lesser measures fail)
- HLC Props., Ltd. v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.4th 54 (Cal. 2005) (trial court’s factual findings on discovery reviewed for substantial evidence)
- Pioneer Elecs. (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.4th 360 (Cal. 2007) (courts must balance privacy and discovery interests)