Padron v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y of N.Y., Inc.
16 Cal. App. 5th 1246
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Padron sued Watchtower and a local congregation for childhood sexual abuse by a congregation member; he served a PMQ deposition notice with Request No. 12 seeking responses to Watchtower’s March 14, 1997 "Body of Elders" letter.
- The superior court (after a discovery referee) ordered Watchtower to produce responsive materials subject to limited redactions (victim and responding elder identifying information) and a strict confidentiality/nondisclosure order.
- Watchtower produced documents heavily redacted and refused to produce documents dated after March 2001 (arguing those were controlled by a separate corporation, CCJW), and ultimately announced it would not comply with the March 25, 2016 order adopting the referee’s recommendation.
- Padron moved for monetary sanctions; the court imposed $2,000 per day for failing to produce documents and $2,000 per day for failing to search for documents (total $4,000/day).
- On appeal, Watchtower challenged the court’s authority to impose the monetary daily sanction, the requirement to produce post-2001 materials, alleged First Amendment/religious-poltical intrusion, and claimed substantial justification for noncompliance.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: applied judicial estoppel (Watchtower previously endorsed daily monetary sanctions as an alternative), found substantial evidence Watchtower had custody/control of post-2001 materials, and held the discovery order and sanctions were within the court’s discretion and constitutional limits.
Issues
| Issue | Padron's Argument | Watchtower's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to impose $4,000/day monetary sanctions for discovery noncompliance | Court may impose significant monetary penalties incrementally to compel compliance | Monetary sanctions limited to reasonable expenses/attorney fees under Civil Discovery Act; daily monetary fine punitive and unauthorized | Court authorized such sanctions; applied judicial estoppel based on Watchtower's prior position in Lopez and affirmed court’s inherent/discovery powers to impose daily monetary sanctions as remedial and discretionary |
| Duty to produce documents dated after March 2001 (CCJW materials) | Watchtower had access, custody, and control of Service Department files and legal department reviewed files; must produce all responsive documents regardless of addressed-to entity | CCJW is a separate entity; Watchtower lacks possession/control of post-March 2001 documents and cannot be compelled or sanctioned for them | Substantial evidence supports court/referee finding Watchtower had custody/control post-2001; Watchtower cannot relitigate; production order stands |
| Whether the discovery order impermissibly intrudes on religious polity / First Amendment | Documents concern administrative responses about placement/liability and are discoverable; privacy protected by redactions and confidentiality order | Order improperly resolves religious-structure questions and interferes with internal religious governance/associational anonymity | No unconstitutional ecclesiastical inquiry; order did not require doctrinal adjudication; confidentiality and limited redactions adequately protect privacy and First Amendment interests |
| Whether Watchtower acted with substantial justification (excusing noncompliance) | Watchtower’s privacy/First Amendment/associational concerns justified refusal; burden and privilege claims warranted | Watchtower repeatedly lost on these merits; refusal was willful and contrary to court orders | Watchtower failed to show substantial justification; multiple rulings and protections (redactions, protective order) made noncompliance unjustified; sanctions appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 246 Cal.App.4th 566 (discussing appropriate incremental discovery sanctions and rejecting terminating sanctions as first step)
- Pomona Valley Hosp. Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court, 209 Cal.App.4th 687 (trial court has broad discretion to manage discovery)
- Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc., 174 Cal.App.4th 967 (describing incremental approach to discovery sanctions and standards for terminating sanctions)
- Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.4th 360 (balancing discovery against constitutional privacy interests)
- Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 155 Cal.App.4th 736 (courts retain inherent authority to sanction litigation abuse)
- Doe v. United States Swimming, Inc., 200 Cal.App.4th 1424 (party asserting substantial justification bears burden)