BishopAccountability.org
	Tentative Ruling Bars Naming of Accusers Clergy Abuse: Three of the Cases Set for Trial in San Diego Involve Former Inland Priests By Michael Fisher The Press-Enterprise October 24, 2006 http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_names25.37aed85.html Los Angeles - A judge has tentatively denied a bid by the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego to force those claiming sexual abuse by clergy to reveal their identities in public court documents in the first lawsuits headed for trial early next year, attorneys said. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Haley Fromholz took the issue under submission, but indicated he was inclined to deny the diocese's motion, attorneys said. His final decision will likely affect the more than 800 pending clergy sexual abuse lawsuits in Southern California, including the 140 cases targeting the dioceses in San Diego or San Bernardino. The San Bernardino Diocese did not join the San Diego Diocese in its request. San Diego managed parishes in Riverside and San Bernardino counties until 1978 when the San Bernardino Diocese was formed. "Our representative did attend the hearing but was not an active participant," said the Rev. Howard Lincoln, spokesman for the San Bernardino Diocese, of Tuesday's hearing. Victims' advocates and attorneys have blasted the San Diego Diocese's motion, calling it an intimidation tactic aimed at shaming accusers into silence. Diocesan attorneys counter that their client's ability to defend itself is being hamstrung by the restriction. Three of the five cases set for trial in San Diego involve former Inland priests. The first trial, scheduled for Jan. 17, involves accusations that Monsignor Patrick J. O'Keeffe molested a 17-year-old girl at St. Adelaide Catholic Church in Highland in 1972. The accuser is named in her lawsuit targeting the San Diego Diocese. Her name is being withheld by The Press-Enterprise, which does not routinely identify people who may have been victims of sexual abuse. Like much of the clergy-abuse litigation, the plaintiffs in the other four cases set for trial are identified in court documents with pseudonyms, or by a first name and last initial only. Their full names have been given to the diocese, which is allowed to identify the accuser during depositions and on subpoenas, attorneys said. State law requires those who sue to be identified by their full name except in rare cases where the person could be exposed to threats of harm or social stigma, attorneys said. The San Diego Diocese contends its constitutional rights are being violated because it is prevented from making the accusers' names public in the search for witnesses who can aid in its defense, said Michael Webb, a diocesan attorney. "What we are concerned about is the ability to build a defense and exercise our due process rights. When people use fictitious names, it inhibits our ability to do that," Webb said. "When you can use the name, people who have information about the allegations can come forward." Irwin Zalkin, a victims' attorney, argued that the diocese has not been hampered by the ban on identifying accusers in court papers. "They have had the right to use these names to subpoena documents and to interview (people). Outside of putting an ad in the newspaper with these peoples' names in it, there is just a point at which the public policy of this state rejects this kind of intimidation," Zalkin said. Webb denied that church attorneys are trying to intimidate plaintiffs, calling such criticism "ludicrous." He noted that some plaintiffs who are not identified in court papers nevertheless have allowed their names to be used in media reports about their lawsuits against the church. Reach Michael Fisher at 951-368-9470 or mfisher@PE.com
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.