Back to Boston.com homepage Arts | Entertainment Boston Globe Online Cars.com BostonWorks Real Estate Boston.com Sports digitalMass Travel The Boston Globe Spotlight Investigation Boston.com Abuse in the Catholic Church
HomePredator priestsScandal and coverupThe victimsThe financial costOpinion
Cardinal Law and the laityThe church's responseThe clergyInvestigations and lawsuits
Interactive2002 scandal overviewParish mapExtrasArchivesDocumentsAbout this site
2014 update

Crux, a Catholic news site

A new site from the Boston Globe includes news updates on clergy abuse and other Catholic issues.
 Latest coverage

March 11
Victims' lawyer to sue Dupre

March 6
Suit accuses insurer of fraud

March 5
Charges against bishop eyed

March 1
Activists seek sex abuse panel

February 26
Alleged victim to aid probe

February 13
Springfield probe is sought

January 7, 2004
Agents faced reluctant aides

December 3
Church settles with victim

November 15
Settlement fuels money advice

November 12
Claims set aside until 2004

October 30
Hard line set on abuse trials

October 21
Most plaintiffs accept deal

October 19
Therapy sought in abuse suit

October 17
Lawyer says settlement near

October 8
Victims agonize over deal

September 12
Victims seen taking settlement

September 11
Church deal a boon for lawyers

September 10
Church in $85 million accord
Archdiocese facing new strains
Most plaintiffs to accept deal
O'Malley makes an appeal

September 9
Negotiations resume in cases

Earlier stories

Spotlight Report

Easy-print versionEasy-print
EXCERPTS FROM JUDGE SWEENEY'S RULING

'They still resist public disclosure of those documents'

11/26/2002

Excerpts from Suffolk Superior Court Judge Constance M. Sweeney's handwritten ruling rejecting a motion by the Archdiocese of Boston to block public access to thousands of pages of documents related to cases of alleged sexual abuse by clergy:

Denied. This is not an emergency. Instead the motion appears designed to escape the full force of the court's multiple orders to produce documents and that these documents be open to public inspection. ... While the defendants have seemingly produced the documents to opposing counsel at the last minute and under a warning of sanctions and contempt ... they still resist public disclosure of those documents. ...

The defendants have not offered even one citation of legal authority in support of this motion. Of more seriousness ... is the fact that if there was any legitimacy to this motion, the defendants had ample time to bring it on a non-emergency basis. The sense of desperation inherent in the motion is not in any manner supported by cogently articulated facts of law. Moreover, defense counsel stood before this judge on 11/13/02 and withdrew a motion for an omnibus protective order to preclude discovery from the RCAB and its personnel. ... In the present motion, defense counsel seeks an entirely different remedy, namely don't let anyone know what we've given [the plaintiffs]. The increasingly dreary attempts of the RCAB to slow or limit disclosure of discovery is accurately chronicled in plaintiff Ford's opposition to this motion.

It should be noted that this motion was not filed on Friday. Rather, it was left in an envelope at the cashier's desk in the clerk's office and was addressed to an assistant clerk who was in session. This occurred after 4:30 p.m.

Finally, I am loath to criticize the plaintiffs for falling for this transparent delay tactic. But simply because a party files a motion does not mean that prior court orders are suspended. The plaintiffs could have gone right ahead and filed the discovery because that is what the court had long ago ordered.

If the tone of this endorsement is harsh, so be it. The court simply will not be toyed with.

This story ran on page A14 of the Boston Globe on 11/26/2002.
© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.


© Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Advertise | Contact us | Privacy policy