BRIDGEPORT, Friday, June 12, 2009,
2:00 p.m. — The Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport
today filed a Motion with the Connecticut Supreme Court for
reconsideration of the Court’s recent decision in the case Rosado
v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocese Corp.
The Diocese has
asked that the case be considered by the entire Court ("en
banc"), rather than the divided, five-member panel that
issued the May 22, 2009, decision, which was officially released
on June 2, 2009.
"The decision raises significant concerns and deserves review
by the full Court, as opposed to a divided panel," the Diocese
states in its Motion. The decision admits, moreover, that
all of the issues involved are issues of first impression under
Connecticut law and, on virtually every issue, other courts
have reached different conclusions.
The full text of the Motion is available for download below.
Failures
The Diocese maintains that the decision of the divided panel
must be reconsidered by the full Court (consisting of all active
justices) because:
- it fails to consider the serious conflict of interest of the
trial judge, who should have been disqualified;
- it fails to uphold the legitimate privacy and constitutional
rights of all parties to lawsuits, particularly concerning the
permanency of sealing orders; and
- it fails to recognize that disclosure of the sealed documents
in question is barred by the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.
Conflict of Interest
Upon reconsideration, the Diocese
believes that the full Court should hold that Judge Jon Alander,
the trial judge who issued the ruling which is the subject
of the appeal, committed reversible error by not recusing himself
in light of an obvious conflict of interest. The Diocese concurs
with former Chief Justice William Sullivan who, in his dissent,
identified numerous, undisputed facts that were not acknowledged,
let alone analyzed, by the majority.
Judge Alander was chairing a Judicial
Committee reviewing the issue of press access to court records
whose stated purpose was to provide more accessibility to court records
and proceedings. Creating
a further conflict, one of the members of this committee, who
was collaborating with Judge Alander, was a reporter from
the Hartford
Courant, which was a party in the case against
the Diocese.
"The actual circumstances here involved
the trial judge’s simultaneous service
on the pro-media task force – which included a party’s advocate
[the media] and no representatives
of any privacy constituency – while he
was presiding over these controversial cases," the Diocese
states in its Motion. "The task force’s pro-media 'mission,'
the highly-publicized and political reasons for its creation,
the media affiliations of all of the non-governmental individuals
selected to staff it, the controversy surrounding it as it
proceeded with its assignment, and the trial judge’s collaboration
on a subcommittee with a reporter from The Courant, placed
the analysis squarely within the scenario requiring disqualification
under the case law and Canons 3 and 4 [of the Code
of Judicial Conduct]."
Legitimate Rights
The Diocese also believes that, on reconsideration, the full
Court should develop a standard for reviewing motions to vacate
sealing orders which contains a balanced respect for the legitimate
privacy and constitutional rights of all parties to lawsuits.
Under the decision of the divided
panel, "The test for modifying/vacating a sealing order . .
. virtually assures that such orders will be modified or vacated
upon request," the Diocese states in its Motion, noting that
"a party can never 'reasonably rely' on a sealing order, because
all such orders are subject to revision. In other words, there
can never be a permanent sealing order. Thus, a party defending
against a motion to modify/vacate a sealing order, can never
demonstrate 'reasonable reliance' on a sealing order," as
part of an opposition to a motion to modify/vacate a sealing
order.
"The adverse and far reaching ramifications of
the test that the majority has established for modifying or
vacating a sealing order warrant reconsideration by the full
Court," the Diocese concludes.
First Amendment
Finally, on reconsideration, the
Diocese believes that the full Court should analyze the Diocese’s
arguments (referred to as "privileges") by which it maintains
that disclosure of the sealed documents is barred by the Religion
Clauses of the First Amendment.
"Section III of the decision is
simply wrong in asserting that the defendants did not adequately
raise and preserve their federal constitutional privileges
when seeking relief from the requested discovery," the Diocese
states in its Motion. "The record before this Court shows that,
as early as their September 14, 1994 motion for a protective
order, the defendants expressly objected that requiring production
and dissemination to 'non-parties' of confidential files relating
to 'the Diocese’s personnel practices and policies relating
to priests serving on the staffs of local churches' would violate
the 'free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment’
by invading the ‘internal affairs of the Roman Catholic Church.'"
"When the courts required production of the documents
– to be emblazoned with 'CONFIDENTIAL' and provided only to
the plaintiffs, and only for their possible
use in this litigation, and under indefinite
sealing orders prohibiting any public use or dissemination –
the defendants did everything necessary to preserve their rights.
Reliance on the court's protective conditions did not constitute
a 'knowing, voluntary, and deliberate waiver' of the privileges
expressly invoked. Rather, the defendants preserved the right
to challenge any proposed public dissemination
if and when – if ever – the court was prepared to consider
vacating the sealing orders."
Fundamental Issues
This case involves fundamental issues of judicial fairness
and privacy which impact all litigants, not just Catholics or the
Catholic Church.
By its Motion filed today, the Diocese maintains that, given
the gravity of issues involved and the overt omissions in the
decision of the divided panel, the full Court should reconsider
the decision.
-30-
 Motion
for Reconsideration: Download
Questions and Answers on
the case Rosado v.
Bridgeport
Roman Catholic Diocese Corp.
What are the main issues of this case?
The diocese believes that the
decision in this case will impact all current and future litigants
in Connecticut.
There are important constitutional and privacy rights at
stake in this case that should be of concern to all citizens, not
just Catholics.
The sealed documents at issue should also be protected by
the law as well as by the religious clauses of the First
Amendment. We believe the Roman Catholic Church should receive
the same rights and protections that other litigants receive
in lawsuits.
During the litigation of these cases during the 1990s, the
victims and their attorneys had access to the records in
question under seal.
In 2001, the claims were settled, and the court records,
including documents under seal, were set to be destroyed,
as is the standard procedure.
What about the matter of judicial fairness?
Judge Jon Alander of the Connecticut Superior
Court had a first-class conflict of interest in this case and should
have recused himself, as two other judges had done under similar
circumstances.
After he received these cases, Judge Alander chose to chair
a Judicial Committee reviewing the issue of press access
to court records. The stated purpose of the committee was to provide
more accessibility to court records and proceedings. In fact, Judge
Alander continued to work on the committee after the diocese identified
the conflict of interest, and at a point of time when he could
have withdrawn from the committee.
Creating a further conflict,
one of the members of the committee, who was collaborating
with Judge Alander, was a reporter from The
Hartford Courant, who was a party in the case against the
diocese.
Didn’t The Hartford Courant already publish these
documents, in violation of the law?
Yes. The Hartford Courant obtained
copies of some or all of the documents in question from unknown
sources, despite the court’s sealing orders, and published
a lengthy article discussing the contents of those documents
on March 17, 2002.
So why is the Courant, along with The
New York Times and other newspapers, pursuing this action?
We cannot speculate on their
reasons. But given what the Courant did in 2002,
this story is very old news.
As Justice William Sullivan states in his
dissent, the Courant and
the Times had "reported extensively on the underlying
cases from the time that the first action was brought in
early January 1993 through the date that they were settled,
that they knew about the sealing orders, and they never sought
to intervene in the cases for the purpose of challenging the sealing
orders while the cases were active . . . This belies any suggestion
that the intervenors are seeking access to the sealed files
in order to provide a more complete understanding of the judicial
process."
Some say the documents need to be revealed to help the victims
of abuse move forward in their healing process.
The victims, through their attorneys,
had copies of the sealed documents at issue – a fact the
diocese has mentioned in its press releases.
The sealing
of the portions of the court files in question restricted
access only to nonparties, such as the newspapers who have
reopened these long-since-settled cases. Indeed, many of
the sealed documents in question were filed in court by the
plaintiffs/victims, who had obtained copies from the diocese
as part of the discovery process.
Some in the media have speculated that priests accused
of abuse in the 1960s and 1970s may still be active. Is
this true?
No.
The accused individuals are no longer priests, and have not functioned
as priests for many years. The diocese has been very open and
transparent about this information.
It is irresponsible for members of the media to claim otherwise,
especially as they covered the lawsuits in question extensively,
between their filing in 1993 and their settlement in 2001.
It’s simply an attempt to inflame the public and to promote
anti-Church sentiment.
How does the Diocese of Bridgeport respond to allegations
of sexual abuse, whether by a member of the clergy or someone else?
The response of the Diocese and its leader,
Bishop William E. Lori, has been significant, thorough, and
comprehensive.
In fact, we have trained 90,000 people to date in the warning
signs of abuse and how to report suspected abuse. We reach
out to victims with compassion and dignity, to nurture healing
and reconciliation. We have put in place safeguards and educational
programs to ensure that such a tragedy will not happen again.
And, we have spoken openly and often about this topic, particularly
to parents.
More information on the Diocese’s Safe Environment
programs is posted online: click
here.
|
