Roberts-Douglas v. Meares

ROBERTS-DOUGLAS, Shirley al., Appellants,

et

v. MEARES, al., Appellees. et

John L. INC., TEMPLE,

EVANGEL al., Appellants,

et ROBERTS-DOUGLAS,

Shirley al., Appellees.

et 89-CV-55,

Nos. 89-CV-354. Appeals.

District of Columbia Court of

Argued Nov. 1991.

Decided Nov.

Evangel Temple, formerly located north- Washington, east of fraudulent and coer- cive conduct on the of leaders of the fund-raising church connection with proposed facility. new In their com- amended, plaint, claimed defendants, that the who include the Tem- (John ple, bishop Meares), its L. and two of sons, Bishop fraudulently Meares’ induced large to contribute sums of by misrepre- the defendants’ funds senting Temple’s financial condition salaries, and the individual defendants’ as purpose well as the need for and intended of the According contributions. plaintiffs, the defendants then converted some of the funds so obtained to their own personal use. plaintiffs

The further positions defendants abused the of trust and confidence which held as minis- unduly plaintiffs ters and influenced the parishioners contributing and other into dollars, many in thousands of far excess of anything reasonably most of them could afford. The tactics defendants’ coercive allegedly repeated included threats of di- against vine retribution those failed to who amounts, pledge or contribute sufficient harassment, types e.g., well as various singling perceived delinquents by out name requiring humiliating and run a them to gauntlet before deacons and members in good funds, standing. In order to raise Christopher Mahoney W. and E. William according plaintiffs, to some of the Nelson, Hanson, with whom John N. Shel- parishioners defendants incited to submit Lucas, ley V. and Sherlee Stanford Nelson applications simultaneous for loans to sev- briefs, appellants were on the for in No. appellees disclosing 89-CV-55 and eral No. 89-CV-354. institutions without applications lender that other also Rauh, B. Michael with whom Carroll D. being made. briefs, Hauptle, Jr. appel- was on the lees in No. appellants 89-CV-55 and in No. pleadings pretrial deposi- their and in 89-CV-354. tions, the defendants denied that en- coercion, gaged fraud, misappro- TERRY, SCHWELB, Before and priation, and contended that their conduct WAGNER, Judges. Associate protected by the Free Exercise Clause SCHWELB, Judge: Associate They of the First Amendment. also main- plaintiffs tained that several of the I against disputes biased them as a result of religious over doctrine. THE CONTROVERSY trial, plaintiffs propounded This Prior to allegations by case involves parishioners interrogatories nine former requests pro- of the broad At pretrial motions. to the defendants. vived the defendants’ duction documents case, significant objected por- The defendants conclusion comprehensive opin- discovery, judge tions of the and the oral delivered judge compel. granted granted judgment The trial favor moved ion which he part, compel pursuant motion in declined but to Su- defendants discovery responses requests 41(b). those Summarizing the testi- per.Ct.Civ.R. credited, related con- primarily which financial mony he had heard and dition of the individual defendants. hardships including accounts attempting to had endured in subsequently The defendants filed mo- demands, meet the defendants’ summary judgment tions for to all directed my evidence had “won stated that their plaintiffs’ complaint. the counts in my head.” contin- heart but not The partial summary trial judge granted The ued: judgment to the “undue influence” are all unquestionably These claim, plaintiffs alleged in which the sincere, honest, They people. and decent occupied posi- each of the defendants had backgrounds come from different tion of trust confidence vis-a-vis their circumstances, me at seems position had abused that case, least unites in this what effectively [that] coercing contributions is, common denominator what them.1 trial denied the defen- and, deep abiding is a faith in for- God summary judgment dants’ motion for merly least, in their church. at respect of fraud inten- claims and distress, tional infliction of emotional hold- impossible It for me listen to the ing the plaintiffs genuine had raised testimony and feel tremendous not issues of material fact and if the alle- gone sympathy they for what have gations complaint proved, in the through. defendants’ not protected conduct would be detailing After the contributions made

by the First Amendment. by plaintiffs and the Temple individual con- proceeded non-jury they

The case then to a financial had felt sacrifices claims, make,2 judge recognized on the trial fraud which had sur- strained to claim, probably plaintiffs they 1. In their influence was bur- [she] undue And then I feel sought donated, restitution of the sums guilt had that she had afterwards dened with compensatory punitive as well as and being pledge able to be- about not cause, meet her damages they for what testified, described as the Douglas you a if are as Mrs. "tort” of undue influence. your you pledge, part make a of Christian and obligation keep it. is to judge’s findings 2. The oral at the conclusion of she, any perhaps more other And than following eloquent the trial included the de- least, insurmountably plaintiff at suffered scription of the results of the defendants’ fund- raising activities: harm, Cogdell, genuine Miss emotional that is professional help. necessitating some Douglases people poor, The are who are not having Patty, any source of Miss other means, certainly people but modest who funds, support her child checks contributed $15,000 contributed or more to last fund this The fund. Norrises contributed many many previ- and thousands of dollars to reasonably able to af- more than ous funds. ford, work seven that Mr. Norris had to so Harrisons, poor people, The also not but days day to make a fourteen hours a week means, wealthy any people by either $5,000. pledge fund, contribute to the new church went out sister, Moreno, whose Norris’ Miss [Mrs.] borrow, putting second to house, a trust on their perhaps all the the most modest of income is plaintiffs, pledged $24,000, borrowed and after all the $5,000 obviously which she expenses they paid, up had were wound afford, place trying ran all over the could not $7,000, only with of which all contribut- bank, understandably and borrow it from ed to this fund. could, finally gave rejected, she what nurse, Cogdell, registered Miss and I can paycheck a two- one whole which was guess only her income was in that [what] be period so that at she would week least profession, swept away by the rhetoric given among the ones had some- counted who deep feelings, religious pledged her first $5,000, $10,000, project. thing to this church then doubled it to which un- testimony from Mrs. questionably position And there was even was not in a she couple planning to that one that was afford. Harrison contention, judge recon- and direct that obligation that it was his to decide case sider, light opinion, and the evidence the denial on basis law in the of this sympathy. than requested rather considerations portions certain discov- reluctance, apparent he ruled for the With reappraise the ery. judge The should then defendants. sufficiency supporting the of the evidence by any proffer new fraud claims found, among things, any responses by based on new proved had not clear that the discovery defen- convincing evidence that the defendants to such misappropriated reopened. dants had or diverted determine if the record should be representa- false funds or had made plaintiffs’ con- respect With second upon tions of fact which the had tention, agree trial court’s we with the contributing their mon- reasonably relied facts, of the claim of a rejection, on these ey. He that some of the state- concluded hold, influence. “tort” of undue We how- ments which the described ever, vivos, gift like a testa- that a inter punish e.g., that God mentary disposition, fraudulent — be set aside adequate contri- those who failed to make equitable grounds on the basis of undue protected by the First butions—were connection, reverse influence. that the Amendment. The also held granting partial summary judg- the order a case of plaintiffs had failed to make out against ment on the undue influence count distress, of emotional intentional infliction Harrison, plaintiffs Mae and Daniel N. emphasizing that no intent on summary judgment affirm the entered the defendants to cause such distress remaining against plaintiffs. seven We proved. been judge’s entry, at the also affirm the trial appeal, On contend that the case, judg- conclusion of the erroneously restricted their motions of the defendants on the ment favor discovery thereby prevented plaintiffs of intentional inflic- claims all proving They their fraud claim. fur- distress.3 tion of emotional in judge ther maintain that the trial erred sum- granting the defendants’ motion for II mary judgment on the undue influence granting judgment claim and in for the THE FACTS4 claim defendants on the emotional distress Evangel Temple is a District of Columbia plaintiffs’ the conclusion of the case. organized religious and ed- agree plaintiffs’ corporation first part We in with the married, plaintiffs’ request get among plaintiffs guess, for such relief is I lous. The the gave wedding rings perhaps slightly de- for their contri- more meritorious than the over their enough. requests, this fund. meritorious butions to fendants’ but not denied. It is likewise against requested sanctions 3. The defendants Super.Ct.Civ.R. plaintiffs pursuant the above, parishioners’ influ- 4. As noted the undue claiming that the lawsuit as a whole inter alia trial as a result ence claim was dismissed before was frivolous and that there was no basis for granted judge’s having in the of the trial request plaintiffs’ certifica- the initial for class summary judgment. defendants’ motion for sanctions in a writ- tion. The trial denied distress, fraud and emotional The claims of order, ten and the defendants now seek reversal hand, disposed the the other of after decision, pursuant as well as costs of that a result of heard the case at trial. As assertedly appeal. D.C.App.R. for an frivolous disposition, appellate the rec- this difference in wholly of We find these contentions devoid respect the undue influence issue ord with merit, judge applied reject a the notion that the applicable to the two not the same as the record standard, superseded affirm the and incorrect was heard. claims as to which evidence against judge’s denying sanctions order impose decline to sanctions distinguished and Although parties have not against plaintiffs in connection with their summary record on the their briefs between the record, are, appeal. judgment trial of motion and the course, propriety required of the plaintiffs sought to evaluate the The have also sanctions defendants, by looking partial summary judgment claiming against that the defen- award of only actually judge’s deny- before the appeal order at the record that dants’ from the trial time he considered that mo- ing against trial at the was frivo- sanctions facilities, school, gymnasium, a a governed by a television purposes. ucational It is church leaders. Most or all Presbytery composed of ministers and and homes for Bishop Presbytery The in the fund- by plaintiffs participated headed Meares. property gov- holds title to all church raising followed. programs which temporal affairs of religious erns the upon controversy in this case centers through comprised of the church a Council leaders, by by means used church elders, ministers, all and deacons. particu- his Bishop Meares and two sons Temple fi- Evangel are The activities building lar, to the to obtain contributions largely of the con- by nanced the members characterized fund. The have gregation, contributions to for financial fund-raising techniques as a defendants’ support Temple’s an inte- activities are insult, humiliation, harass- “campaign of gral membership obligation of under the against intimidation them.” ment and corporate by-laws.5 Temple’s charter and They alleged that contributions were tithe, contributing only by Members not influence, undue by secured coercion and proportion set of their income misrepresented the and that the defendants church, expected are also to donate to Temple financial circumstances Temple designated projects. defendants, the individual the size on Rhode was able to establish its home by church leaders to contributions made Washington in northeast Island Avenue funds, the use which was from its members. means of donations money.6 made of the to be mid-1980’s, By according to the de- allegations of In connection with fendants, membership Evangel Tem- tactics, claimed coercive ple grown substantially, larger and a that Bish- told church leaders worship facility was needed for and for God,” op represented the “voice Meares programs. July and various new Between ques- said should not be and that what he September of the church elders be- Claiming inspiration for his tioned. divine gan organizing building designed fund statements, announced that Bishop Meares large facili- enable them construct a new parishioner who was required each ty Largo, Maryland. facility This was to God $5,000 church, give only gainfully employed include not a new but also Christ, support Body joins together McCoy Quadrangle Corp., as it tion. Dev. 14:20; (D.C.1983). description Lev. In the the Lord. Gen. of the work of 27:30-32; follows, 3:8-10; 18:26; facts which we have therefore confined Matt. Mai. Num. ourselves, 9:7-14; 16:1-3; 12:8; at least insofar as the undue influ- 23:23; Heb. Rom. I Cor. concerned, allega- ence claim is to the sworn 7:4-10. appear tions of fact verified com- in the require, a covenant of member- The Articles affidavits, plaint depositions, and in the answers willing standing, support of ship good "[t]he interrogatories to and other materials which by ministry of the church the work and accompany opposition their to the church’s mul- offerings, and a systematic giving and of tithes tiple connection, summary judgment. motions for In this regular present be in the conscientious effort to accept representations made 3:8-10; meetings Rom. church. Mai. of the by post-argument filings in their 18:20; 9:1-14; 12:8; Matt. Hebrews I Cor. with this court that these documents had been Membership By-Laws, and 10:25.” Constitution served on the defendants and were before the Covenant. by time that he and considered him at the summary judg- partial ruled the motion for found that the 6. The trial opposed ment. The defendants have not our convincing prove and evidence to clear failed doing so. repre- fraudulent defendants had made that the appeal, not con- do sentations. On By-Laws Evangel and See Constitution III, argue only mo- finding, that the Temple, test this Article Section 16: opportunity to them a fair denied tions earnings We believe that the tithe of our Holy is discovery by denying prove God, fraud offering up by unto and is the faith light they entitled. claim to have been We of the first fruits of our increase. believe claim, we do not posture the fraud of the tithing giving practiced be that tinually by con- plaintiffs' specifics address in detail all believers and is an outward Church, regard allegations it. expression unity of the husband, Harrison, plaintiff N. sell building months.7 When Daniel fund within five respect pa- presented it. directive this doctrine was first With money in meet retreat, order to they giv- rishioners borrow special deacons at a pledges, one of the elders insisted their they thirty en minutes to decide whether regardless of that loans should be obtained Bishop pledge required amount. rate, take the interest because “God will if did not do Meares threatened that of that.”8 care so, them, them, kill God would curse “turn His back” on them. pressures allegedly placed on the the amounts plaintiffs and others to obtain plaintiffs, parishioners

According to the by church leaders included di- demanded given enough money to the who had not apply multiple loans. Pa- rectives to publicly identified funds were go many rishioners were told to to as lend- during name church services and were ing possible institutions as to obtain loans gauntlet made to stand and to walk a pledges; meet their with which to disgrace two lines of deacons. between to inform were ordered not parishioners had met Those who applications had lenders that similar loan “lay upon pledges were directed to hands” Bishop pub- Meares been made elsewhere. passed those who had not as the latter obtaining licly couple for commended one through gauntlet, delinquent each day, loans on the same thus six different required, he or she member was when $20,000. collecting line, reached the to make a end of public pledge give the amount demand- church, including the Deacons of the Anyone ed. who declined to do so would Harrisons, did not Douglases and the who church, disgrace, be ordered to leave the contributions, required or who make the by the front door. being done with the questioned what was raised, with dis- money were threatened According plaintiffs, the church pa- and excommunication. Several missal regard practical leaders had little for the publicly denounced. Mrs. rishioners were ability of their to make the re- Roberts-Douglas related that after she required plain- of them. The contributions quested accounting, she was summoned an Bishop, crying tiffs middle of a church tribunal in the before emotional, announced that in of God’s night. alleged that at this noctur- She will, going church leaders were not to lis- for her proceeding nal she was excoriated people complaining being ten about threat- of church directives and defiance money. parishio- able to Those obtain the A lit- expulsion and damnation. ened with ners who claimed to unable to contribute be later, Roberts-Doug- tle over a month Mrs. the amounts demanded of them were ad- expelled from las and her husband were that it the will of monished God Temple. membership in the sell,” i.e., large “borrow or borrow many according sums of from as lenders as parishioners, Most of the means, possible, worldly posses- or sell all of their were of modest sions, including necessary. if pledged their homes amounts and contributed Harrison, they to what proportion One of the Mrs. Mae were out of reasonably Mrs. Roberts- that Meares visited her home could afford.9 swore Donald husband, she, Douglas alleged her and and her that personally and insisted that she 2, supra. be- requirement originally also The difference described as 9.See note 7. The was $5,000 changed per family, promptly but in the text tween the recitation in note and $5,000 per employed adult. accompanying this footnote is attributable Judge Weisberg’s findings were the fact that Roberts-Doug- According plaintiff Shirley record, the trial while the on the basis of made las, go get out and the elder stated: "You’re from the materi- facts related above are derived worry the loans and don’t about the interest— decided the motion als before the when he 17%; if interest 16% or God [is] take it even the summary judgment. Roberts-Douglas will take care of that." Mrs. time, that, that interest rates were stated approximately 9%. mind, $24,000 right okay. people in together are in their So their children contributed building and above their right jump up joyfully fund over mind don’t their regular payments to the tithes and pledge money like that without a convic- cou- church. Mr. and Mrs. Harrison —the sons, bishop’s Elder Don- tion.” One of the impor- Elder ple whom Donald Meares had Meares, testified that ald in their kitchen to sell their home— tuned manipulate pastor I don’t think as a sell, did not but instead obtained a second responsibility anyone. or dominate Our $7,900, mortgage on their house to raise give direction as to what we be- was to the fund. This contributed I like to add that there lieved. ... required struggle them to to make the ad- congregation that people are those our monthly payment ditional $298 [given $5,000], that’s their have not mortgage. Cogdell, home Ms. Katherine choice, as well as there were a lot of nurse, registered allegedly contributed people I that made what and the elders $2,000 building to the fund. Ms. Gloria very pledges considered unrealistic that Patty, having any other source of counsel, we had to that were unreal- available, alleged funds to have included istic, why figure high in total as $2,000 support child checks in her contribu- was, people I it because some think building tion to the Kenneth and fund. pledged out of an emotional basis. $10,439 and, in Frances Norris contributed This was how battle lines were process, went into such dire financial drawn when the considered the mo- begin circumstances that Mr. Norris had to summary judgment. working tion for Mary 100 hours a week. Ms. Lou Moreno, $10,000 salary only who had a

year, deposition testified at her that she Ill felt pressured so and “brainwashed” money, defendants’ demands for THE AND CLAIM OF FRAUD accompanied by repeated threats of THE DISCOVERY ISSUE retribution, pledged $5,000 divine that she A. General Considerations. building to the fund. Unable to obtain amount, pay loans to that she turned over granting judg In his oral decision her paycheck entire for a period. two-week ment to the defense on the claim fraud, judge analyzed the trial that provided The defendants entirely an embracing separate catego claim as four different disputed account of the events. misrepresentation.10 ries of fraudulent Af They have they engaged denied that discussing in ter some detail the evidence fraudulent they unduly behavior or that applicable category, con to each any parishioner influenced pledge or con- cluded that had failed to tribute building Bishop fund. convincing prove by clear and evidence that deposition Meares testified on that those engaged kind of the defendants had gladly, who contributed “came joyfully, yes, appeal, and said fraud. On do not give is God’s will for me to $5,000, $10,000, $20,000 $30,000 ruling challenge judge’s that the evi $50,000 $100,000.... insufficient,11 people And our dence of fraud was con- 10. These categories allega- consisted of than mis- the claim of undue influence representations regarding tions of fraud. of fact the defendants’ condition; (2) allegedly financial false “state- challenge judge’s ruling 11. The do faith,” e.g., ments of that it is the word of God prove infliction of failed to intentional must sell their homes and requires proof This emotional distress. tort contribute thousands of dollars to the purposely so acute a dis- the defendant caused fund; (3) alleged misrepresentations pur- turbance of another’s mental or emotional tran- used, pose for which contributions were to be quility physical consequences that harmful together misappropriation with the of the funds might result. Clark v. Associated Retail Credit raised; (4) alleged representa- "cult-like" 183, 186, 62, Men, App.D.C. 105 F.2d 65 regarding steps parishioners tions the were to (1939). judge’s finding that no such intent The money. category take to raise the The clearly fourth was established was not erroneous. See may reasonably 52(a). analyzed relating Super.Ct.Civ.R. be more to of each individual effectively precluded the financial condition tend claims defendant. proving certain of these be- erroneously cause the motions order, judge gave no In her the written discovery. compel denied their motion to why she had denied the indication as to agree plaintiffs regarding the We with the in Cate- respect to information motion with discovery, relevance of some contend, however, gory The defendants B. proper the reme- disagree with them as to should be sustained that her decision dy- three reasons: sought was rele- 1. the information trial, plaintiffs served the de- Before the only punitive dam- vant to the issue interrogatories and with sev- fendants with therefore ages, production and its could requests production of documents. eral until after a deter- properly be deferred objected The defendants to substantial liability; mination plaintiffs’ requests and re- number of the allegedly at- plaintiffs 2. the plaintiffs comply fused to with them. The tempting try press, their case in the to discovery. compel to then filed a motion improperly publicized motions On November through secured discov- any information granting entered an order ery regarding the individual defendants’ confidentiality part, “subject to a motion affairs; and financial agreement to be worked out coun- between plaintiffs 3. failed to examine By implication, the motions sel.” Category A the de- compel discovery as to documents denied the motion to inspection. produce for remaining items. The now fendants did portions partial denial appeal from of this address each of these contentions We requested discovery.12 of their turn. the contentions of In order to understand Subject Matter. B. Relevance to the respect discovery parties regarding the financial The information issue, necessary distinguish the it is to individual defendants was condition discovery as to which was or- materials issue, remedial concededly relevant A, dered, Category which we will call damages punitive namely, the amount denied, implicitly it was those as which liability for such awarded if that should be Category Category A will call B. which we See, imposed. e.g., Robin damages were of Evan- included all financial statements (D.C. A.2d Sarisky, son gel reflecting the re- Temple, all records Indeed, this 1988). judge ruled that funds, expenditure ceipt and of church if disclosed information would have be expenditure purpose amount and of each liability. We established person paid, and the whom was hold, however, significance of the that the Evangel Tem- identities of the members not limited to requested information was persons ple, the number and identities also relevant to punitive damages; it was funds, making building pledges to the had en the defendants the issue whether requests by pledged, all contribu- amounts misrepresentation.13 gaged in fraudulent money, and the tors for return of their parties obtain dis general, identities of financial institutions at which matter, privi covery regarding any Evangel Temple deposited money. its Cat- leged, subject mat- relating to which is relevant egory B information included 1975; (4) require net worth of each Specifically, dants since ask us to defendant since 1975. individual respond interrogatories the defendants to (1) relating produce documents and records apparent misconception judge’s 13. interests; individual defendants’ business the (2) punitive only relevant dam- information was ages any moneys raised for the the transfer of and re- her exercise of discretion flawed Columbia, the District of fund outside court of deference that this duced the measure States; Georges County, and the United Prince J.D.C., exercise. In re to that must accord and benefits of individual defen- the salaries (D.C.1991). A.2d 26(b); Super.Ct.Civ.R. plaintiffs reasonably of the could not ter action. which the Co., afford to make. Evening Newspaper Dunn v. Star (D.C.1967). 26(b) Rule allegations, In the context of these specifically provides ground that it is no interrogatories that and re are satisfied objection sought for that the matter will be quests production of documents relat trial, if reason- appears inadmissible at Bishop ing to the financial situation of ably discovery calculated lead to the sons, reasonably like Meares and his were “Relevancy admissible evidence. to the ly discovery to lead to the of admissible subject liberally, matter is construed most College Ambassador evidence. Cf. Cir.1982), point discovery grant- the that should be Geotzke, (5th 675 F.2d 663-65 any possibility ed where there is that the denied, rt. 459 U.S. 103 S.Ct. ce 138, sought information be relevant to the (1982). 74 L.Ed.2d 118 reason One Dunn, subject matter the action.” su- judge gave granting which the trial pra, Discovery rulings 232 A.2d at 295. judgment plain for the defendants on the misappropriation are confided to the discretion of the trial tiffs’ claims of fraud and court, plaintiffs pro was that the had failed to that discretion must be exercised showing any duce evidence that of the de conformity principles. these Id. at personal fendants had to their use diverted 295-96. had funds which been contributed Al Temple purposes.14 for charitable present case, In plaintiffs though explicitly did address fraudulent conduct which is point, plaintiffs were likewise un misrepresenta said to have included both prove able to that the individual defendants tion misappropriation. The claim of had lied about their own financial condition. misrepresentation is based in on the discovery the motions Without plaintiffs’ allegation Bishop that Meares denied, however, plaintiffs had falsely represented and his sons to their readily had no direct access to information parishioners that the church and its leader regarding the individual defendants’ finan ship were in dire economic straits and in cial circumstances. Such information desperate money. plaintiffs need of potentially question shed on the claimed, fact, that the defendants mis attempted whether these defendants represented earnings of the individual by misrepresenting induce contributions defendants, and they that concealed from circumstances, and in effect own apparently generous that urging parishioners to emulate noble deeds pledges by Bishop contributions really which were never done. Meares being were fact offset at the Temple’s expense (e.g., by Temple’s Regarding Disclosures C. Concerns purchase of a new home for bishop the Press. Largo, $300,000). effect, Maryland for according the defendants seek to sustain The defendants also pretended that making financial judge’s refusal to order discov motions sacrifices which were not in mak fact ery Category upon B materials ing, depicted being themselves as worse off ground allegedly financially were, they really than and en attempting try press, their case in the gaged in deceptive this conduct in order to and that disclosures about the individual induce the to make contributions defendants’ financial condition would there- granting judgment possible 14. In his order to the defen- it did not but It's dants at the conclusion of the case-in- proving claim clear bear the burden of chief, the trial held that convincing evidence.... [T]here any there is no evidence before ofme kind evidence at all of kind before me that penny money that one that was solic- misappropri- misspent has been project purposes ited for this other than those ited. went for ... by any ated of the defendants in this action. [for] were solic- mation, overlap least in the absence of bring at about unwar- fore threatened to have groups. or not privacy. Denial the two Whether intrusions into their between ranted the relevant to infor- discovery plaintiffs information made use available the however, action, issues, subject relating matter to one set of mation remedy for the appropriate an informa- right the to receive relevant had plaintiffs part of the conduct on the have issues. The defendants tion on other complain. defendants authority prop- no for the provided us with plain- discovery that to which osition 26(c) autho- Superior Court Civil Rule may entitled be denied otherwise tiffs were grant protective rizes the trial court to relating to the manner which for reasons pre- “To good cause shown.” order “for (or, case, in this failed to they exercised discovery process, the vent abuse exercise) rights. More- discovery impose specific terms and condi- may order ball, over, crystal the motions absent a require discovery that tions for not have based her denial judge could in a be disclosed confidential information Category B on the manner, to information disclosed at all.” access certain or not be Category A Labs., inspect to Mampe Ayerst plaintiffs’ failure v. records, yet (D.C.1988); conduct had not oc- see also Seattle Times Co. for that 34-36, Rhinehart, 104 S.Ct. 467 U.S. at the time of her order.16 curred (1984). 2199, 2209-10, In- 81 L.Ed.2d 17 time, note, the de- the same We at deed, parties judge the motions directed obligation, no obviously under fendants are appropriate an attempt negotiate to to plaintiffs failed to simply because respect to “confidentiality agreement” with something rights, produce exercise she Category A information as to which inspection more than plaintiffs’ for the findings ordered disclosure. There are no to the satisfaction once. If it is established suggest anything in the record to any Category B judge that of the trial or could be more drastic than that was sought by plaintiffs now records respect Category B. warranted with A, Category but not under made available may exercise copied, judge inspected or Inspect The Failure D. Plaintiffs’ accordingly. his or her discretion A Category Documents. also contend that The defendants Remedy. The E. inspection by opposing they produced for posi Category A and doc have taken counsel those records discovery judge’s uments as to which the motions that if the motions tion plaintiffs’ compel erroneous, entitled granted motion then are order was opposing never discovery, but that counsel of fraud. their claims to a new trial on argument, At however, examined these records. would, be out of remedy Such a plaintiffs’ counsel conceded that this was A balanced the error. more proportion to true. of this under the circumstances disposition, to the trial case, the case is to remand charitably, Although, put there is to reconsider directions court with demanding practice of little to commend a discovery, see compel plaintiffs’ motion to and of access to records and documents conformity with our supra, note ignoring them after have been then each individ holding information as to produced inspection copying,15 duly is rele financial condition defendant’s ual approach to the plaintiffs’ unorthodox punitive dam only to the issue vant not essentially A irrelevant Category records is liability, question ages, B also to the right Category receive infor- to their a different requested do not decide whether need not and 15. No costs or other sanctions were regard. supra. appropriate defendants in this See note if the result would be way, if she had in this structured her order specify in her 16. The motions did proceed dis- required thus inspect Cat- order that the should first covery step a time. one egory A and then determine whether to records discovery Category B. We seek further as to specifically implicated claim motion to com- to the merits of the misrepresentation. discovery, of fraudulent he she should the pel or order any appropriate to make re- defendants holding subjects While that the embraced any further in- sponse. After answers to plaintiff’s compel the motion to terrogatories provided, and have been after relevant, we leave to the trial court the any appropriate records and documents balancing initial of the interests involved. produced,17 plaintiffs the should have been court, In the trial the made a defendants proffer any given opportunity the be generalized objection proposed that the dis- further new evidence believe would covery unduly intrusive, burdensome their claims of fraud. The substantiate 26(c). oppressive. Super.Ct.Civ.R. See judge trial should then determine whether Conclusory assertions of this kind are in- trial, supple- presented the evidence Capital Mortgage sufficient. Lewis v. In- evidence, by any newly-proffered vestments, (D.Md.1977); mented 78 F.R.D. potential has the to survive a defense mo- Sidney Printing Publishing Klausen v. & Co., (D.Kan.1967); F.Supp. 41(b). pursuant Super.Ct.Civ.R. see tion If generally potential, the materials no such Moore, new have Fed- James Wm. Moore’s 26-69, (2d at 26-435 ed. decision, Practice, judge may prior the his § reaffirm eral 1991). case, present however, In the the but should make a sufficient assessment of judge explicitly trial never addressed the any newly-proffered evidence to render his question of intrusiveness and burdensome- ruling appellate review. If amenable interplay ness or its A with relevance. discovery provide renewed does informa- demand for all of an financial individual’s result, might trial tion which affect the significant period records for a of time is judge reopen should the record and receive potentially intrusive. Since motions or, newly evidence if neces- available judge provide did order the defendants to sary, order a new trial on the claim (in A) Category significant amount of fraud.18 information which the individual de- dealings Temple might fendants’ with the IV traceable, be need for the arguably compelling. information was less THE UNDUE INFLUENCE CLAIM OF availability plaintiffs Given the Granting A. The Trial Court’s Order Category records, judge may A well Summary Judgment. Partial unnecessary find it to order ex- all of the discovery, going tensive some of it back In a order entered on October written years, plaintiffs seventeen which the now 1988, judge granted summary the trial seek as to each individual defendant. Es- judgment in favor of the defendants dis- pecially in the context of a case of this missing complaint. II In that Count kind, religious liberty in which issues of are count, sought return of plaintiffs should, potentially implicated, the court moneys they had contributed to the irrelevant, “screen out broad based discov- fund, alleging that the defendants ery might implicate when the answers [the relationship had of trust “abused rights.” constitutional defendants’] congrega- confidence between minister Geotzke, supra, 675 F.2d at 665. pro- tion” and that been “duress, coercion, balanced, un- through Once the trial has in cured decision, prayed conformity this The also the interests due influence.” adequate proffer be- 17. We leave to the trial court in the first in- as to a causal connection any misrepresentation stance the determination whether further dis- covery and the contribu- tween should be authorized in new fraudulently alleged to been induced. tions provided information sponses. in the defendants’ re- effect lack of sufficient evidence to that summary judgment has led to our affirmance of against of the defendants most determining 18. In whether a new trial is war- E, See Part IV on the undue influence claim. ranted, will, course, obliged the trial be infra. to consider whether the have made an non-moving party, resolv- interest, punitive favorable they be awarded any doubt as to Treating ing party’s in that favor damages, counsel fees. Swann allege dispute. an solely purporting to existence of a factual claim as one (D.C.1983). tort, Waldman, judge held that it was independent plain- subsumed substantial intentional of fraud and of tiffs’ claims Elements Undue B. The Nature and the ex- of emotional distress. To infliction Influence. subsumed, not so tent that was gift bequest It is axiomatic that facts were al- concluded that insufficient If the free and unconstrained. must be motion. leged the defendant’s to defeat unduly property by recipient has obtained jurisdic- in that judge observed donor, influencing conveyance tion, had of undue influence the “tort” and must be set aside. Hurd v. invalid recognized only in the context of chal- been Cramer, cert. de 349, 369-70, App.D.C. 40 of Turning to the law lenges to wills. nied, 1051, 623, 57 L.Ed. 229 U.S. 33 S.Ct. judge stated that jurisdictions, other (1913). 1356 invariably included an ele- “the claim has of duty [distinguishing] freedom “The of in relationship which ment of a one-on-one influ hand ‘undue will on one [from] weakness,” position of the donor was in a extremely difficult.” on the other is ence’ “all of the present in the case whereas 699, Kroelinger, 42 704 v. F.2d Whitmire large place in alleged solicitations took held, (W.D.S.C.1930). in the con We have actual church service groups, as of an contests, influence of that undue text will religious similar meet- or at retreats or or moral coercion that “physical consists of ings.” Apparently on of the lack account judg exercise the forces the testator contacts, of such “one-on-one” Es than his ment of another rather own.” “were not also ruled that the defendants Broun, 413 A.2d 1310, tate Broun v. ques- fiduciaries when the contributions in (D.C.1980). undue “To constitute 1313 solicited,” though “they tion even must fluence, on the testator pressure may respect fiduciaries with to the dis- be free will.” Him agency destroy his Finally,

position collected....” 979, 984 Greenspoon, 411 A.2d v. melfarb wrote, the record on the the trial (D.C.1980). partial summary judgment motion for prove plaintiffs cannot “demonstrates influence, in but undue “It is not in the unduly influenced fluence, necessary to overthrow that is ... required recovery under that tort sense LeFevre, 114, Beyer v. 186 U.S. a will.” failed to theory,” because the (1902). 765, 769, 124, 46 L.Ed. 1080 22 S.Ct. allege activities actual- that the defendants’ gained by influence is influence “Undue ly influenced their decisions to contribute Weir, re Estate improper means.” to the fund.19 408, 988, 404, U.S.App.D.C. 475 F.2d 154 in MacMil (1973). As the court stated 992 appeal an award of sum On 261, 262, 126 Knost, U.S.App.D.C. v. lan 75 the record de mary judgment, we review denied, 641, 235, 236, 63 cert. 317 U.S. F.2d Gerstenfeld, 514 A.2d novo. v. Williams 32, (1942), quoting with 87 L.Ed. 516 S.Ct. 1172, (D.C.1986). must examine 1175 We instruction, jury court’s approval the trial interrog complaint, the verified answers right influence another affidavits, atories, to deter has depositions and ‘[o]ne may He in his favor. ... genuine issue of to make a will there is a mine whether preferment before lay his claims for fact. District Columbia material kinship (D.C.1982). They may be based testator. Gray, A.2d We or or service friendship or or kindness in the most construe these materials considered, against Temple theo- backdrop on an undue influence for his as a 19. The motion, protection disposition question ry. exercise” He addressed the "free free exer- the First Amendment accords to the considerably greater decision detail in his oral religion implications for those cise of of the trial. at the conclusion imposing liability protections any decision “specially influence is active need or sentimental or materi- trine of undue searching dealing gifts”). with argument al consideration. One can use persuasion long it is fair and so bequest gift through or Exaction of a go oppressive an honest and does not undoubtedly wrongful undue influence is degree where becomes coercive.’ Nevertheless, agree the trial act. we separate “tort” of undue judge that no however, ends, Legitimate persuasion recognized juris in this influence has been begins, undue influence when the free or, aware, are diction so far agency destroyed, of the donor has so been disposed to create such other. We are conveyance by that the is effected the will by judicial of action fiat. On a novel cause donee, not of the donor. Nelson v. hand, long recog the other the courts have (R.I.1949), Dodge, 76 R.I. restitution, equitable nized the doctrine see Pomeroy, Equity Norton Juris- John provides gift is ob “where (5th 1941); at 780 n. ed. prudence, § fraud, influence, imposi undue tained supra, 411 A.2d at Himmelfarb, see also donee, tion exerted the donor principle man recover it that no permitted should to secure benefit be noted, Although, as the trial wrongful Myers from his act.” v. own concept of undue influence has been 210, 219, 455, 459 Myers, 185 Md. recognized jurisdiction only in this in the (1945);20 Hurd, supra, App. 40 see also wills, challenges join context of we now 369-70, 623, denied, D.C. at cert. 229 U.S. recognized courts elsewhere which have 1051, (1913); L.Ed. 1356 Anno 33 S.Ct. 57 logic applies gifts that its inter vivos tation, Undue in Nontestamen- Influence See, O’Hearn, well. e.g. O’Hearn v. 327 tary Clergyman, Spiritual Advis toGift 242, 245, 734, (1951); Mass. 97 N.E.2d 735 Church, er, 649, or 14 A.L.R.2d 651-53 Nelson, supra, (invalidating 68 A.2d at 57 1991) (1950 Supps.1987 & & [hereinafter gifts by to church secured undue influ pith This is the and Undue ]. Influence ence). fact, In the burden on the substance of the undue influence may less be onerous here than it would be here; they claim have asked for return of if they challenging testamentary a contributions, upon ground that disposition. Whitmire, supra, In 42 F.2d by from them un was secured 711, the court stated that “in the case through of what due influence the abuse gifts inter vivos the in doctrine undue they allege to have been a confidential relat stronger rigidly applied fluence is and more ionship.21 than in the case of wills.” First Chris Finally, significant there are dif 68, tian McReynolds, Church v. 194 Or. influ ferences between fraud and undue 72, 135, (1952), 241 P.2d 137 the court ob ence, though concepts the two some even grantor required pos served that is “[a] co-exist, though they are times and even greater competency sess in the execution loosely lumped together. As sometimes delivery and of a than deed a testator is District of Supreme Court of the Co required possess executing in a will.... century recognized more than a lumbia testator, Generally, grantor, unlike a ago, importunity, suf undue influence cope party must with another to the trans will, may be exercised ficient to invalidate a action, is, grantee.” (Citations that with a fraud. v. without the existence of Stewart omitted.) 307, quotation Elliott, (2 and internal Mackey) marks See 319 13 D.C. (doc- 951, (1883). supra, also 3 at 779 Pomeroy, § extent, any, seek

20. Because District of Columbia common law is 21. To the if law, Maryland derived from Court of those ed the most decisions of the legal influence,” equitable relief for “undue rather than Appeals Maryland, particularly authority award- we know of no relating property, law are accord complaint fairly ing it. We do not read the respectful by consideration our alleging the tort of conversion. Parnell, F.Supp. courts. See In re Estate 275 609, (D.D.C.1967); Tydings Tydings, v. (D.C. 1989) (concurring opin A.2d 893 n. 1 ion). supportive of their claim. Final- repre- loans—as characterized false “Fraud ... concealment, sentations, deception, they allege contributed ly, al- in excess of could may undue influence amounts far what there be whereas afford, truly represented suggest that undue though reasonably facts are all made.” 25 from this lack of full disclosure of them influence be inferred [is] Am. proportionality. Duress and Undue § 2d Jur. Influence (1966). fraud, influ- “undue at 396 Unlike noted, defendants, deny as we have decep- need not attended at all with ence be reject any impropriety. They both the Gockel, tion or circumvention.” Gockel relationship plaintiffs’ contention that the (Mo.1933)(citation S.W.2d of trust and parties was one between omitted); quotation see also internal marks accusation that confidence and the supra, at 780 n. § Pomeroy, plaintiffs’ trust. The defen- betrayed the that, as the trial dants also contend Undue C. Indicia of Influence. stated, alleged place solicitation took considerations. General large groups, without pulpit from the or in relationship any showing of a “one-on-one question presented The critical position which the donor was plaintiffs’ claim pretrial demise of the circumstances, these weakness.” Under the materials of undue influence is whether defendants, according all of their opposition produced by protected by the activities summary judg the defendant’s motion also The defendants First Amendment. ment, most favorable to viewed ruling judge’s us to sustain the ask more raised one or triable adequately to al- had failed entry precluding issues of material fact purportedly coer- lege that the defendants’ judgment pursuant Super.CtCiv.R. plain- practices actually induced cive in determination is to made 56. This be which tiffs to make the contributions totality circumstances. light of the now seek revoke. Wolpert, the court stated in v. As Guill 805, 821, 224, 234 191 Neb. 218 N.W.2d (2) a The existence or non-existence of Quinlan, (quoting Cunningham v. relationship. confidential 687, 689-90, 822, 823- 178 Neb. 134 N.W.2d noted, (1965)), judge, 24 The trial as we plain not the defendants were held that the impossible lay down hard is [i]t so in connection with the tiffs' fiduciaries in kind as to and fast rule cases of this question. of the contributions licitation presumption of undue influence when a assessment, but it is agree with this We necessity arises. The rule must of be “con necessarily conclusive. The term applied according particular facts relationship,” used in this con fidential and circumstances of each case which fiduciary text, technical re embraces “both question arises. informal relations lations and those Maintaining that the materials which upon trusts and relies exist when one man opposition submitted in to the defen- Church v. another.” First Christian summary judgment dants’ motion 82, at 241 P.2d supra, 194 Or. McReynolds, it, plaintiffs rely on sufficient to defeat at 142. undue influence. several indicia of existing relations claim, “Confidential They particular, that the relation- beneficiary do not parishioners and the between the testator and ship between them as of undue any presumption clergymen one of trust alone furnish defendants as MacMillan, supra, 75 confidence, the defendants influence.” and that 262, F.2d at 236. Ne specific U.S.App.D.C. at 126 betrayed They point trust. vertheless, less to es generally takes e.g., public practices of the “[i]t defendants — influence a confidential parishioners to a tablish undue when subjection delinquent parties.” advocacy relationship exists between gauntlet of deacons and the 628, 641 Speaks, 869 F.2d securing multiple In re The Bible apparent deception in

421 spiritual person under his direct (1st Cir.) (citations quotation over a and internal 816, denied, omitted), charge. 493 marks cert. U.S. (1989). 67, 34 Where 110 S.Ct. 107 L.Ed.2d 269-70, 246, Prince, 2 66 Giff. Nottidge relationship the validi implicated, such a is 103, (V.C.1860); 113 see also Eng.Rep. closely ty gift scrutinized. purported of a Whitmire, supra, 42 F.2d at 701-02.. 599, 607, Brown, 240 Ark.

Barrineau v. relationship every between Not Indeed, 30, (1966). gift 34-35 a 401 S.W.2d however, is clergyman parishioner, and a a set aside under such circumstances be one. Else v. Fre necessarily a confidential not have though the transaction could even 127, Church, 247 Iowa mont Methodist impeached in of a confi been the absence 50, (1955). 139, 56 73 N.W.2d relationship. generally 3 Pom- dential See “Member church, given 24, 956, devotion to a ship This is with and supra note at 792. § eroy, accompanied by no more than the usual the donee is not technical true even where fiduciary. pastor v. Bau ly the donor’s Frame intercourse between social man, 461, 467-68, P.2d members, Kan. 449 ipso its [does [create] not] facto (1969). concept and confi of trust relationship.” such a First Christian donee is a dence as between donor and at Church, 241 P.2d supra, Or. one, equity exercise and courts broad Speaks, 142; In re The Bible see also vigilance the rela appropriate even where 641-42; Eng. F.2d at New Mer supra, 869 legal tionship between' them is not a one Mahoney, 356 Mass. chants Nat’l Bank v. moral, social, See, personal. merely (1970). 654, 658, 255 N.E.2d Black, 86, 92, Mich. e.g., LaForest v. minister, urges the priest, or rabbi Where (1964). 128 N.W.2d congregation to make do members of the or for to a fund for the homeless nations As stated in a case in Somalia, by relief in contributions famine court found that undue influence been rationally parishioners cannot be viewed clergy, exercised a member of the “the If the presumptively revocable. suspect or good utmost faith must one in be shown donee is only donor and relation, though connection between a confidential even pew, in a church listens technically fiduciary, support that the former sits order to sermon, conscientiously gift money anything of or to the latter’s a of value from contribution, spe reposed the occasion another who has the trust and makes a Nelson, supra, scrutiny confidence.” 68 A.2d at 57. does not arise. cial Moreover, established, if undue influence is pursued or Where the donee has necessary “it is not at all that the to show depen psychological created a condition gift spiritual from the to the benefit inured donor, on the other dency on the of the personally adviser to render it void.” Id. hand, relationship of inference that a As in British the court stated a case decid stronger, and exists is trust and confidence years ago, ed more than 130 vigilance against judicial the need for person who stands in a relation of

[n]o relationship correspond such a abuse of spiritual confidence to another as to so Spirit Holy In Molko v. ingly greater. acquire a habitual influence over his World Chris Ass’n accept any gift mind can or benefit Unification of 46, 252 762 P.2d tianity, 46 Cal.3d person dominion of who is under the denied, (1988), 490 U.S. Cal.Rptr. 122 cert. influence, danger without the aside_ 104 L.Ed.2d 109 S.Ct. gift prin- having the set [This] (1989), the Unification former members of ciple prevails where there exists a rela- donat sought restitution Church naturally influence tion which creates church, among other alleging, ed to the mind. Therefore the doctrine over the representatives of the church things, that attorney extends to the relation of unduly influenced client, ward, had “brainwashed” guardian parent them, a thereby abusing had become what there does not arise from and child. But In confidence. relationship of trust and any of these relations an influence so sufficiency plaintiffs’ strong religion upholding the of the as that of a minister of influence, bishop singled by out name and allegations the court were of undue de- through that a restitution is made what was stated case for ordered walk “ psy- party humiliating gauntlet. if dominant The de- out ‘one uses as a scribed [its] unfair manner chological position an sell or in- fendants’ directives to borrow party to consent deceptive practic- induce the subservient cluded the condonation of he agreement to which proposed an More- es vis-a-vis the lenders. contribution] [or Harrison, not have consent- over, otherwise case of Mr. and Mrs. [or she] 1124, 762 P.2d at ed.”’ Id. at placed on pressure to sell their home was Cal.Rptr. (quoting John D. Calamari at simply by warnings of divine ret- op Joseph M. Perillo, directly during pulpit, from the but ribution The Law Contracts & 1977)). (2d 274-275 ed. very by a visit one of the defendants home he wanted them to sell. finding principal leading to a factor relationship many of a confidential dispropor- donations Solicitation

reported the existence of contin- cases was tionate to donor’s means. contacts, generally a uous influential on basis, unscrupulous an one-to-one between Speaks, supra, In re The Bible spiritual trusting and a or otherwise leader explained may undue influence court See, parishioner. e.g., deferential The Bi- by established circumstantial evidence be 631-41; Speaks, supra, ble 869 F.2d at “its proof, direct and that well 808-09, Guill, supra, 191 Neb. at may existence inferred from such fac- be 228; Nelson, supra, 68 A.2d at N.W.2d disproportionate gifts made under tors as continuous 53-55. To the extent that such circumstances, age health unusual shown, contacts have been donor, and the existence of a confi- may properly rely the inferences derived on relationship.” dential 869 F.2d at from the cited authorities. Sermons There is no claim that the flock, Bishop Meares to his entire infirm, con- aged physically did hand, a are not stuff from which tend, justification, that considerable with relationship confidential is derived. extracted from them the contributions pa- if warning A of divine retribution means. Ac- disproportionate pledge rishioner fails to or contribute cording submis- to several sworn quite sufficient amount alone be sions, in- very modest frightening, particularly if it comes from a many thousands of dol- comes contributed bishop repeatedly speak- who claims to be although they plainly Temple, lars See, ing representative e.g. as the God. do so. An reasonably afford to could Nelson, supra, 68 A.2d at 54. When such might reasonably impartial trier of fact pulpit remarks are directed from needy for a mother two find unusual however, whole, congregation as a at- paycheck, entire children to contribute her tempt to use the sermon as a basis did, plaintiff Mary Lou Moreno or for a significant setting gift implicates aside a family take out a second middle class to First Amendment concerns. See discussion residence, mortgage as the Harri- on their D, Accordingly, in Part III in the infra. did, church facilities sons in order to build case, plaintiffs largely rely present Largo, Maryland, far from their own part defendants conduct on the of the nearly gift comprises “If all or homes. gone beyond is well said have means, all of the inference of the donor’s pulpit addressed from the exhortations made, easily more while undue influence is congregation large. at gift if of the donor’s is but a small wealth, in- According pressures presumption total of undue plaintiffs, upon parishioners likely fluence is be drawn.” Undue them and on other less 14 A.L.R.2d at 661. See Influence, supra, often directed at as individuals under them 6, 12, Donovan, 65 N.M. Ostertag circumstances that made resistance ex- also v. (1958); 25 Am.Jur.2d tremely had not 331 P.2d 358-59 difficult. Those who 36, at 397- pledged given demanded Duress and or the amounts Undue § Influence

423 877-89, To (1966); 110 S.Ct. at 1599-1600.22 Md. at at Myers, supra, cf. engage in activities permit someone 44 A.2d at 458. proscribed by otherwise be

which would conduct is law, upon ground that such Religion D. Free Exercise Consider- religion, his or her required by ations. “ religious doctrines of professed ‘make the background Looming large in the land, superior to the law belief Religion case is the Free Exercise of every citizen to become permit in effect to ” of the First Amendment. The de- Clause Smith, supra, 494 a law unto himself.’ maintained from the outset fendants have (quoting at 1600 at 110 S.Ct. U.S. is a dispute that their with the 167). at Accord- Reynolds, supra, 98 U.S. religious religion into the courts are con- right one free exercise of ingly, the injecting stitutionally constrained from an individual of obli- “does not relieve gation comply a valid and neutral They contend that most or all with themselves. applicability ground on the general law of the conduct with which the (or proscribes prescribes) con- that the law by their charged them was dictated (or religion prescribes pro- duct that his beliefs, religious and that have a con- scribes).” Smith, supra, 494 U.S. carry religious right stitutional out their (citations and internal 110 S.Ct. at 1600 obligations judicial without interference omitted). quotation marks plaintiffs, The on the other intrusion. hand, engaged in claim that the defendants correctly applied fore- The trial garden variety fraud and coercion and are going principles denying the defendants’ seeking disguise wrongful acts claim summary judgment on the motion dressing up religious garb. fairly ap- analysis The of fraud.23 same allegations of undue influence. plies to the Exercise em Free Clause maintain, If, defen- as the concepts braces two to believe —freedom by overbear- dants extracted contributions and freedom to act. v. Cantwell Connecti ing one or more of the the will of cut, 296, 303, 900, 903, 310 U.S. 60 S.Ct. not insulated from then their is conduct (1940); Employment L.Ed. 1213 see also scrutiny by the defendants’ status judicial 872, 877, Smith, Div. v. 494 U.S. 110 S.Ct. Molko, supra, 46 Cal.3d at clergymen. 1595, 1599, (1990). 108 L.Ed.2d 876 “The 64-65, 1124-25, Cal.Rptr. at P.2d at but, first is in the nature of absolute 140-41; College Ambassador v. see also Cantwell, things, the second cannot be.” Geotzke, This supra, 675 F.2d at 663-65. 303-04, supra, 310 U.S. at 60 S.Ct. at 903. allega- particularly true in government are made for “Laws urged parishio- defendants tions that the actions, and while cannot interfere disingenuous conduct engage in ners to religious opinions, with mere belief and solicita- connection with the simultaneous they may practices.” loans; First Amend- Reynolds multiple tion of 145, 166, States, pressure license to provide 98 U.S. 25 L.Ed. ment does not United financial (1879); Smith, trying into to swindle supra, see also 494 U.S. knowingly "Suppose statements ... [and] make false one believed that human sacrifices necessary part religious worship, money a used of is concealed and when in fact the seriously it be contended that the civil personal aggrandizement.... for their own government under which he lived could not by a is raised And the fact that prevent Reynolds, su- interfere sacrifice?” any grant religious leader is not church or a pra, U.S. at 166. 98 immunity other- conduct that would of from by any other citi- be fraudulent conduct wise order of 23. As the stated in his written zen. 5, 1988, October Annotation, generally Reli- Free Exercise See of the defendants have carried the constitutional gion First Amendment Clause Defense of far, however, suggesting protections too 755, Liability, A.L.R. Fed. 794-801 Tort 93 liability for fraud are immune from Exercise). (hereinafter Free guise religious where in the doctrine 424 a de exercised to overbear ence has been

institutions.24 of the party’s turns on all pendent will to First The trial was sensitive Guill, supra, of the case. circumstances him precluding Amendment considerations 821, 234. Re 218 N.W.2d at 191 at Neb. religious placing the defendants’ be- from reiteration, pulpit, from the even peated the truth on trial. He remarked that liefs any parishioner kill curse or that God will falsity he characterized of what enough to or borrow does not sell who representa- e.g., “statements of faith” — demands, af bishop’s potentially meet the pulpit that it is the “Word tions from the vulnerability sub fects the listener’s parishioner must bor- Lord” that each constitutionally unprotected sequent and $5,000 not be or sell to raise row —could threats of divine importuning. Evidence of by the proved, and that he was troubled routinely received retribution has been ought speaking “I question whether be all of the upon, especially where not relied courtroom.” it at all this about exclusively in made representations were judge’s concerns were well-founded. congregation, and entire sermons competence “in the of courts under It is not some were also reiterated where approve, scheme to dis- our constitutional See, individually. e.g., In re The classify, regulate, or in man- approve, Molko, Nelson, and Speaks, Whit Bible religious at ner control sermons delivered mire, supra. find no fault with We Island, meetings.” Rhode 345 Fowler v. such evidence. consideration of 526, 527, 67, 70, 828 73 97 L.Ed. U.S. S.Ct. (1953). the extent the claims are based “To pa delinquent Attempts to shame ..., retribution merely on threats of divine meeting pledges rishioners into Molko, supra, 46 stand.” cannot through gauntlet requiring them to walk 1120, 61, 252 762 P.2d at Cal. Cal.3d at only and in may of deacons not humiliate 137-38; Rptr. Snyder v. Evan- see also walking, doing are timidate those who Church, Cal.App.3d 216 gelical Orthodox chilling message to can also send a but (1989).25 297, 305, Cal.Rptr. 644 264 of the present are or who hear others who Assuming without event after fact. although a sound claim of But practice is founded on the deciding that the ever,26 rarely, if be undue influence could convictions, religious we do defendants’ solely upon generalized invoca founded that, Smith, Reynolds under God, believe pulpit tion from the of the wrath religious for an of a basis the existence pressures fo one-on-one or similar without completely improperly practice will coercive upon complaining party cused rather allegedly extracted immunize contributions whole, on the as a it does not than audience thereby judicial scrutiny. Compare clergyman’s to threats follow that a resort Church, 462 Mennonite like is irrele Bear v. eternal damnation and the Reformed (1975), 105 with Paul v. influ- Pa. question vant. The whether undue was no Although of the trial that there indication claims actual- sion none sincerely believe did not ly simultaneous the defendants to have been induced to obtain loans, they professed to believe. We have no in- what we think that the defendants’ finding. try so is relevant occasion to review sistence that to do question whether their course of conduct beyond religion pru- may bring as a whole went the exercise scenarios which future 26.”[T]he protected resolving anticipatorily." the First Amendment. dence counsels our not 524, 532, B.J.F., S.Ct. Star v. U.S. Florida 2603, 2608, (1989). inquire "truth" or 105 L.Ed.2d 443 25. Courts into the however, beliefs, Amendment, think liabili- "falsity” religious First individual’s of an ty alone must they may investigate sincerity of sermons based on the content and do extraordinary truly Soc’y cases. The be limited to adherent’s beliefs. See International Barber, Consciousness, particularly allegations plaintiffs, and F.2d of these Krishna Inc. v. Moreno, E(5), infra, Cir.1981); (2d are Ms. see Part III see also State v. Mother routine, well, 353, 361, precipi- hardly as to extreme P.2d but not so 114 Wash.2d (1990) (free liability solely representa- of tate on account exercise claimant must show held). congregation rather religious sincerely In tions made to the entire his convictions are case, complainants. present conclu- than to the individual the found at the deposition 4. and testimo- Soc’y, & Tract 819 F.2d an affidavit Watchtower Bible Norris; denied,, ny by plaintiff, Frances G. (9th Cir.) a third cert. U.S. (1987); see deposition testimony S.Ct. 98 L.Ed.2d a fourth 5. Moreno; Exercise, supra plaintiff, Mary note 93 A.L.R. and Free Lou least, very Fed. 737. At the court depositions 6. of the individual defen- consider such as of the totali evidence dants. circumstances; ty need and do of we plain There no materials were sworn of influ not decide whether a case undue Harrison, N. Douglas, tiffs Daniel Hugh practice, ence could be founded on such a Cogdell, Patty, or Ken Katherine Gloria J. standing alone. Although neth the verified com Norris.28 plaint some information about the contains Insufficiency Sufficiency E. The or hearsay silent it is of a otherwise of Submissions. character, and as may not be considered Plaintiffs’ proof of its truth contents. See (1) General considerations. Super.Ct.Civ.R. 56(e) op (“[supporting legal principles In the context dis- posing personal affidavits shall be made on above, cussed now consider whether the we knowledge, shall set forth such facts allegations various sworn evidence, in would be and shall admissible entry preclude were sufficient to affirmatively show that the affiant is com partial judgment on claim summary petent testify to to the matters stated of undue influence. We so in unusu- do an therein”); Spellman v. American Securi procedural al context. N.A., ty Bank, (D.C. 1986). case, appellate record this N. Mae E. Harrison and Daniel prior argument, us submitted to in Harrison. the legal parties cluded memoranda of the in support opposition to the mo respect Mae E. With partial tion summary judgment, but not husband, her Daniel N. Harri Harrison and affidavits, interrogatories, answers to son, we think that the materials submitted depositions on Af relied. genuine pre raise issues material fact argument, court, ter this on its own initia summary judgment cluding entry tive, invited counsel to address this omis against them. It Mrs. appears from Harri subsequently sion. We provided were her with son’s various submissions that she and and, some of these ser present materials27 without ob husband29 at numerous jection, accepted them for mons at which were told “borrow the record. obey According Including sell and to God.” original both materials and Harrison, Mrs. ones, the new opposition now consists of if [y]ou you it much heard so did give you felt humiliat- embarrassed

1. verified second amended com- ed. plaint, signed only by which was one

plaintiff, Roberts-Douglas; Mrs. deacon, expected As a Mrs. Harrison put pressure

2. an affidavit and answers to inter- $5,000 per working pledge and rogatories contribute by Mrs. Roberts-Douglas; person. an affidavit and answers inter- rogatories context, aby plaintiff, second vis- Mrs. Elder Donald Meares Harrison; urged Mae ited the Harrisons’ home and however, instances, court, 27. One of the clear briefs the trial 29.In some is not whether deposition, plaintiff cites at Hugh Douglas, present least one that of both Mr. and Mrs. Harrison were provided however, which was not to us. only appears, It Harrison. Mrs. sought gifts as to which restitution experiences Douglas, 28. The of Mr. Mr. Harri- given jointly. were, son and to a lesser extent Mr. Norris however, described some measure in ma- provided by terials their wives. in it, pulpit. The was indicating contributed to sell that this was God’s to, of, so, implicitly response and to do but the context The Harrisons declined will. unrelenting The mortgage, pledged demands. obtain a second the defendants’ did $20,000 fund, large, had building to and contribut- and the Harrisons amounts were gauntlet of $7,900. Referring mortgage on their ed to take out a second deacons, one, that Although Mrs. Harrison related the issue is a close home. alleged have we hold that the Harrisons through line compelled

I felt walk summary judgment. enough avoid to. The though even I did not want praised had met their Elders those who Roberts-Douglas Hugh Shirley given not pledges, those but who Douglas. intimidated[30] and in complaint, verified In the sure, Harrison never stated To be Mrs. interrogatories and affida her answers to words, many any of the documents so catalogued most vit, Roberts-Douglas us, Mrs. her husband made that she and before alleged which are practices coercive on account coer- their contributions opinion. all of the complained. In in this Of discussed cive conduct of which she chil interrogatories, plaintiffs, she and her husband and response to the defendants’ however, allegedly pledged her and contributed the she that she and dren asserted Temple Although Evangel largest left because she was husband amounts. gauntlet, begun that Mrs. Rob required “we had to believe we were to walk the it, that an im exploited erts-Douglas and abused.” She related was aware reasonably con partial might fact trier of being speak afraid to we were tired of in gauntlet procedure was clude that the certainly we felt and did what we currently delin only expose tended not money. felt give any more We want or also to inhibit quent but oppressed depressed the whole about delinquency avoiding into experience. frighten others complaint, in the future. In the verified in the most favorable Construed alleged many Roberts-Douglas that Mrs. this account indicates belief persons mortgaged or sold prior dona- on Mrs. Harrison’s heavy as a result into debt homes and went had been of coercion and tions the result allegedly coercive tac of the defendants’ felt “com- oppression. Since Mrs. Harrison tics. gauntlet through to run pelled” very pledge, and make her substantial Roberts- painted by Mrs. picture The oppressed” she about since “felt one, poignant Douglas pleadings her including obviously experience,” “whole alle- her are devoid submissions large money, the donation sums gave gation and her husband that she hold, summary judg- on prepared are not a result of fund as ment, genuine is no issue there intimidation, not have or the contribu- material fact to whether of threats of in the absence contributed alleged “oppres- resulted from the tions yyrath. Moreover, submissions her God’s sion.” nothing suggesting one-on-one contain or her evidence, directed at her pressures Concededly, similar the Harrisons’ We con- op- to induce contributions.31 in the materials submitted in husband contained plaintiffs’ that, affecting motion, as these less than over- clude position to the genu- be, no presented have whelming. couple, ease pressures fact, defen- and the however, issue of material appeals limited to from ine were not events, however, plainly ing of These Harrison’s affidavit funds. It is not clear from Mrs. made, being any money after contributed whether she subjected occurred after the contributions gauntlet. expul- immediately these before They Temple. Evangel could not from the sion Roberts-Douglas has described in detail 31. Mrs. Douglases retroactively to con- induced the intimidating allegedly tactics used defen- tribute. request subsequent an account- dants to her judgment against ey, money, money, pres- dants are entitled to that a was them as a matter of of, law. I any sure that couldn’t take more money, money, money, preached every

(4) E. Frances G. Norris and Kenneth Then, Sunday I that know of. when Norris. Pastor Meares stated that if we didn’t Norris, secretary, Mrs. a $5,000 testified at her give put God a that would deposition initially that the deacons told her us, curse on or he turn his would back on family and her husband each that should us, very that is what me made uncom- $5,000 pay building, towards the new that fortable, being forced do some- they given an half hour to consider do, thing that I knew I couldn’t and that do,” what “the Lord us to wanted and that put I had to do it so God a that wouldn’t her felt husband that God wanted them curse on me. make the contribution. When the deacons The reason that I am I here now is if returned, however, Mrs. Norris was ad- give $5,000 couldn’t them the that vised that instructions been only gave wanted and what I could and changed, and that she and her husband me, put God would a curse on I would $5,000; should each contribute the total my money rather take back and let God demanded, including contribution tithes do whatever. gifts, and other was about cou- 22% ple’s annual income. Mr. and Mrs. Norris attempted Ms. Moreno to obtain loans it, borrowed money, contributed banks, from three qualify. but did not went into substantial debt. Having $5,000, pledged having found Asked whether she and her husband con- amount, herself to raise that unable she willingly, tributed she stated that paycheck. contributed an entire didwe because we felt this was from the testimony It was Ms. Moreno’s at the Lord. And then didwe because I felt especially judge’s trial that affected the that Sunday we were brainwashed after Nevertheless, supra. heart. See note Sunday Sunday. after sister, her like coercion she has however, Nowhere allege, did Mrs. Norris from pulpit congregation came at any pressure placed upon was her him,32 large. On the record before except at meeting the first with deacons judge properly partial summary entered and in pulpit. sermons from In light judgment against her. cited, the authorities the submission of Mr. and Mrs. Norris is insufficient avoid (6)Other

summary judgment. plaintiffs. Lou Mary Moreno. Although experi- the contributions and ences of other were described in Moreno, Ms. a divorced mother of two complaint, the verified there is no non-hear- teenaged daughters, is the sister of Mrs. say pledged, evidence the amounts Norris. theAt time of her deposition, her they encountered, coercion which $10,000. annual income was less than She contributing. of their reasons for One pertinent part testified in as follows: them, Patty, allegedly Ms. contributed only thing can say I support check child because she had noth- after the retreat we had and the [that] ing give, else to these asking us to $5,000, presented genuine pledge no issue of material fact coming and then back every to the services on Sundays, which could defeat the defendants’ motion Sunday they always preach partial summary mon- judgment. emphasize basis,

32. We seeking that Ms. and the Moreno ized from elders or deacons plaintiffs provided existed, summary payment. no materials induce If such evidence motions, judgment stage presented opposition which indicated that the threats pulpit up by summary from the judgment were followed is it similar nor rec- warnings, aon one-on-one or other individual- ord.

y by fraud bers’ contributions and used other than those intended. purposes CONCLUSION “ in discretion’ The trial court has ‘broad for on the judgment The the defendants handling to discovery, its of and its decision plaintiffs' of infliction of claim intentional only deny discovery is reviewable allow or judg- The emotional distress is affirmed. v. abuse of discretion.” Bruñe for an on the of ment for the defendants claim I.R.S., 89, 93, U.S.App.D.C. F.2d 274 861 vacated, solely ground that fraud is on the White, 1284, supra, (1988); A.2d 1288 432 improperly re- discovery the was making in its rul Unquestionably, at 729. granting order the defen- stricted. The ing, operate under the the trial court must in- judgment on the summary dants undue scope discovery the of under principles that to fluence claim is reversed as 26(b)(1) is and that Super.Ct.Civ.R. broad Harrison, Daniel N. Harrison and Mae E. the rule is liberal interpretation of accorded The plaintiffs. and affirmed to all other as Evening Star News treatment. Dunn v. request for denying order the defendants’ Co., 293, (D.C.1967). paper 232 A.2d 295 All in trial sanctions court affirmed. However, discovery not are the bounds pur- requests by parties for both sanctions Taylor, 329 limits. Hickman v. without The D.C.App.R. suant 38 are denied. to 392, 495, 507-08, 385, 91 L.Ed. U.S. 67 S.Ct. for case to the trial court is remanded (1947); 451 4 Moore’s Federal Practice proceedings further consistent with 1991). 26.56[1], (2d The 26-96 ed. § opinion. 26(b)(1) is sought Rule information under So ordered. which are relevant to limited to matters Hickman, subject matter of the suit. See WAGNER, concurring Judge, Associate supra, 508, 67 S.Ct. at 392. 329 U.S. at part: dissenting in in interpreted This to mean that has been join except I the decision for court bearing have some discovery requests must disposition discovery of the issue and rever case. in the on the real or “core” issues judgment appellees sal of for on the fraud Communications, Clyburn v. News World my opinion, court did count. trial Inc., 1, (D.D.C.1987); Sharon 2 117 F.R.D. in denying, its discretion in abuse broad Time, (S.D.N.Y.1 Inc., 103 86, v. 95 F.R.D. part, compel to appellant’s motion discov 984).1 de The of relevance boundaries Moreover, ery. discovery order particular pend upon the contours appellants’ not a ina substantial reason 26.- 4 action. Moore’s § Federal Practice with their claims. See bility proceed to ruling on 56[1], The trial court’s at 26-97. Washington Metropolitan v. Area White also discovery request must individual 726, (D.C. Authority, 432 A.2d Transit objections in context of the be viewed 1981) discovery ruling (improper reversible discovery granted. raised error is a reason for where it substantial context, opinion, in my in that Viewed see Bell also party’s inability proceed); entering its discretion trial did abuse Co., (5th & 283 F.2d Swift re only compelling an order some Cir.1960) (showing prejudice of substantial discovery prior filing quested discovery required improper to reverse for complaint. amended second argue, ruling). Appellees persuasively view, appellants’ A second amended my appellants’ that it was failure review answer, ele- complaint, and the discovery appellees’ avail themselves allowed fraud reveals determining required to establish precluded ments Appellants, mem- the core issues this case.2 appellees whether church obtained Inc., Tales, Canterbury Properties, interpreting Ltd. v. 1. In local rules which are identical Vale (D.C.1981)). rules, n. 3 431 A.2d deci- to the federal look interpreting sions of federal courts " the rule compelling its order 2. The trial court entered Co., authority’.” ‘persuasive v. Owens & Cohen discovery November 1987. On November Inc., (D.C.1983) (quoting n. 25, 1987, all the trial court ordered complaint "pleading all file amended a second church, appellees’ purpose prom- former members of al- were used for a other than leged appellees, through fraud and pertaining ised or intended. Information misrepresentation, pledge induced them to receipt disposition church’s large sums construction clearly contributions is relevant these facilities, of church for other charitable issues, and the all trial court ordered such purposes, “and for personal benefit of produced information and more to be [appellees]” by engaging fraudulent and requested by appellants. fund-raising Specifical- coercive methods. trial responses court ordered ly, appellants alleged appellees fraudu- questions requiring appellees to disclose lently misrepresented: (1) the cir- financial Temple; of the number members of the the earnings of Temple cumstances the and the pledges who the number had made to build- officials; (2) of Bishop its the extent of ing facilities; fund and related and the (for Meares’ contributions which he was money pledged total amount of and the funds); (3) from reimbursed church the amount collected. court also ordered purpose proposed real new church identify to and appellees disclose financial (4) facility George’s County; in Prince that reflecting receipt expendi- records the and were the al- Temple, contributions for funds; ture church the or of bank banks though property the is owned and con- and other used financial institutions as a by Bishop family; trolled and Meares his depository funds; for the the amount re- (5) and that contributions used for the maining on deposit and the of location poor underprivileged and or would be used in deposited; banks which funds are the for buildings purchase church to and a expenditure amount of each the fund parking adjoining lot Temple.3 Appel- the purpose the expenditure; and the for the sought lants return of their contributions reflecting receipt financial records the and punitive with interest and damages. Ap- expenditure funds; of church all financial pellees appellants answered that contribut- Temple years statements of the for the voluntarily ed fund-raising and their present; all and documents to or protected activities are by the First Amend- requesting any from contributors of return ment. their of contributions. This broad dis- To fraud, establish claim of appellants covery covered all financial information re- allege had to prove and that appellees opinion. claim my lated fraud in “(1) (2) made: a false representation, con- Appellants point relevancy out that the cerning fact, (3) a material ... with knowl- by of the financial records is demonstrated edge of falsity, its with the intent to by the statement made the trial court in deceive, (5) upon and [appellants re- dismissing the claim. the trial fraud What Higgs Higgs, lied].” judge observed was: (D.C.1984). The real issues the involved in any fraud count involve there is no evidence before me of these elements and allegations upon by penny money relied that one of appellants to kind support Considering issues, project them. was solicited for this or indeed proof upon money must focus projects whether the for the earlier about which the by representations obtained plaintiff’s complained pur- false of for went [sic] fact, material including whether funds poses other than those which allegations specificity pledges). Appellants [of re- fraud] failed to honor also quired by 9(b) Civil Superior Rule of appellees urged [the contributors allegations of Court].” Some set same are Mammon, reject "Spirit meaning of false complaints. Considering forth in both trial avarice,” appellants God of riches and and also ruling complaint, court’s in of either find I asserted that the same time defendants ”[a]t no abuse of discretion. homes, living fully are in fine fur- themselves However, my opinion, allega- this nished.” allegations 3. There are of fraudulent appellees practice what tion that did representations false do not relate to the preached is not a issue to core the fraud count (e.g. financial disclosure issue before the court appellants which entitles of all disclosure representations that members would be reward- personal appellees. financial information of by ed for contributions or cursed God if (b) (c) categories overlap or possible It’s that it did not items

solicited. prov- by the burden of which the court bear are covered the material [sic] ing by convincing that claim clear The disclosure of ordered to be disclosed. any reflecting every evidence evidence.... re- the books and records [T]here at all kind before me that this expenditure church would ceipt and misspent misappropri- has been necessarily disposition show ated of the defendant’s and the fund salaries and benefits [sic] Accordingly, action. I discern of church leaders. in the trial court’s no abuse discretion respond appellees were ordered Since requests preju- denial of the additional nor questions produce and to and records books claim appellants’ dice to reason receipt expenditure reflecting every view, ruling. my catego- material church funds and all information about all (d), (a) prior ries at least the estab- appellants’ many years, ina- its assets reasonably liability, lishment of is not rele- bility to their contributions were show that vant to the core issues the claimed fraud spent purposes other than those intend- investigation of those or to sensible is- reasonably ed cannot be attributable through discovery.4 gravamen sues of respect compel denial of motion to essentially fraud claim appellants’ was sought. Appellants’ to other information it, appel- trial related to court described of failure to avail themselves the broad pur- alleged misrepresentation of lees’ granted, discovery while a consider- pose for the contributions and of diversion order, discovery ation the court’s I the funds collected. do not understand determining significant factor in whether appellants disagree to with this character- trial order court’s was substantial my view, of In ization the issues. neither appellants’ prove inability reason for appellees’ personal business interest nor White, claim, supra, their fraud see 432 personal since 1975 their net worth 729, A.2d and resulted substantial necessary develop core these issues Bell, prejudice requiring reversal. See su- by the record when the court disclosed view, pra, my 283 F.2d at 409. compel.5 ruled on the motion For the discovery court’s order was not a substan- reasons, foregoing perceive I no abuse of appellants’ inability pro- tial reason ruling on in the court’s the mo- discretion ceed, and reversal is not warranted on that appel- prejudice and no tion substantial ground. development fraud count lants’ An examination of the information court’s order re- reason trial appellants improper- contend was withheld quires judgment on that reversal Appellants’ ly confirms this conclusion. Accordingly, respectfully count. I dissent limited claim error is trial court’s aspect from that court’s decision. (a) requests denial of their for: information interest; appellees’ (b) concerning business

whether raised for the fund Temple was sent outside Columbia,

District of United States (c) George’s

Prince County; salaries and

fringe provided benefits church lead- 1975;

ership (d) since the individual net

worth of each defendant since 1975. The 233, 889, (A.D.1987); 4. There is no dispute per. that the financial status of 521 A.2d 890 Belinski puni- Goodman, N.J.Super. the defendants is relevant to the claim tive v. damages. Sarisky, Pro-Football, Inc., Robinson v. See A.2d (A.D.1976); see also Hecht v. (D.C.1988) (relative worth of a defen- (D.D.C.1969). F.R.D. punitive dant relevant to the amount dam- However, ages). properly the trial court can appellees Apparently, did not renew re- order that disclosure be deferred until after discovery. compel quests to prima proof liability damages for such facie Fox, has been established. Hudak 215 N.J.Su-

Case Details

Case Name: Roberts-Douglas v. Meares

Court Name: District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Date Published: Nov 3, 1992

Citation: 624 A.2d 405

Docket Number: 89-CV-55, 89-CV-354

Court Abbreviation: D.C.