S.E., the plaintiff, filed suit under New York’s Child Victims Act against the Diocese of Brooklyn, claiming that when he was a child in the late 1980s, he was sexually abused by PS, then employed by the Diocese. SE alleged that the Diocese was negligent in hiring, retaining, and supervising PS, and also accused it of intentional infliction of emotional distress, arguing that church leadership knew or should have known about PS's dangerous propensities.
As discovery unfolded, the plaintiff requested PS's clergy file. The Diocese initially provided a redacted version, citing various privileges and constitutional protections. But after an in-camera judicial review, the court ordered disclosure of certain previously redacted pages. The Diocese objected and filed a motion to vacate that order and secure a protective order, invoking privileges like attorney-client communications, work product doctrine, priest-penitent confidentiality, and broader protections under the First Amendment. PS himself also joined the challenge, seeking to shield parts of the file from disclosure.
The court faced the delicate task of balancing the rights of religious institutions with the necessity of uncovering facts relevant to a claim of institutional negligence. It held that most of the requested documents were fair game. The personnel records, though arising within a religious context, were material and necessary for a plaintiff attempting to prove that the Diocese had prior knowledge of PS's conduct. Claims of religious privilege were rejected. The court noted that the documents were not being sought to settle doctrinal disputes, but to establish whether the Diocese had reason to know about the alleged abuse—a secular issue resolvable through neutral legal principles.
Additionally, the court found that neither priest-penitent privilege nor physician-patient or client-psychologist privilege applied. The Diocese and PS failed to show that the communications in question were made in confidence for spiritual or psychological guidance.
However, the court did agree that a sliver of the requested material—specifically pages detailing a conversation between church members and attorney JF—was protected. Those pages fell under the attorney-client and work product privilege and should not have been ordered disclosed. So, the court modified its earlier decision, allowing those select portions to remain confidential.
The rest of the challenges were dismissed. The Diocese and PS were ordered to provide the remaining pages and pay the costs of the motion to the plaintiff. In the end, the decision drew a firm line: while religious organizations have certain protections, they cannot shield relevant evidence that speaks directly to the question of institutional responsibility for child abuse. The court emphasized that disclosure, when properly limited and purposefully aimed, does not infringe on religious freedom—it upholds the integrity of justice.
There's no refuge from responsibility.
# # #
DECISION