May As Well Throw In World Peace and a Cure for Cancer While You're At It!!

That's what I felt like blurting out at a court hearing today in Los Angeles on whether there should be public disclosure of the personnel files of several former employees of the Diocese of Orange who had been accused of sexually molesting or abusing minor children. I was specially representing one of the non-priest employees who did not want his personnel files made public.

In the papers that I filed, I basically argued that since my client was not an expressly named party in the action against the Diocese of Orange, his personnel files were protected by the right to privacy under the California Constitution. Absent his consent, the only way that my client's files can be publicly discolsed is if the requesting plaintiffs can show a "compelling interest" and the information they seek cannot be gathered from any other nonconfidential source or by way of deposition.

At the hearing today, plaintiffs' counsel (there were several of them) essentially argued that getting "the truth" out about all the allegations that led to the sexual abuse lawsuits against the Diocese of Orange was a compelling interest. In counsels' collective mind, unless the personnel files are publicly disclosed, the plaintiffs in the matter will have no proper sense of "closure," even though they've all been paid a boat load of money in a settlement with the diocese. There was also a nonsensical suggestion that not getting "the truth" out would somehow deny the public of having any knowledge that there was/is a sexual abuse problem in the Church. On this, I felt like yelling out in court, "Just so you know: Japan militarily attacked Pearl Harbor in December of 1941!"

As objectively weak and surreal as the above arguments are, the presiding judge in the hearing, Peter Lichtman, was clearly buying into them. In fact, while I was making some remarks on behalf of my client in support of his disclosure objection, Lichtman rhetorically, and somewhat brusquely, asked me if I wouldn't make the same argument as the plaintiffs. When he said this to me, I pretty much knew that I was wasting my breath. Lichtman was basically signaling to everyone in the courtroom that he thought plaintiffs' thinly veiled desire to publicly humiliate the Diocese of Orange was a compelling enough interest to undermine the privacy rights of certain individuals who were never criminally charged or personally sued for doing things they have only been accused of committing. Given the disposition he displayed today, I will be absolutely shocked if Lichtman doesn't allow public disclosure of the personnel files in question here.

Sidebar Note: Looks as though Judge Lichtman is quite an ambitious jurist.

Update: Qualified shock. Although several personnel files were ordered to be publicly disclosed, it seems that many of them were withheld because of the objections that were made. I didn't stay around to see if Lichtman was going to make a ruling from the bench, and since my client is in pro per, I'll have to wait for him to get notice of the ruling in the mail before I know how he made out.