ARK292 DOE v. ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sabrina Kraus, J.), entered on or about December 5, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant Archdiocese of New York's (the Archdiocese) motion for a protective order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In these consolidated Child Victims Act cases, plaintiffs each allege that they were sexually abused by the same priest.  Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the Archdiocese's motion for a protective order and directing disclosure of the documents sought (see J.L. v. Archdiocese of N.Y., 236 A.D.3d 569, 569, 231 N.Y.S.3d 28 [1st Dept. 2025]).  As the court found, plaintiffs’ discovery demands are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence bearing upon whether the Archdiocese knew or should have known of the danger the priest posed and whether the Archdiocese acted reasonably to protect children from sexual abuse (see id.).

The Tribunal File sought by plaintiffs is discoverable because information concerning the alleged subsequent bad acts by the priest and subsequent remedial or corrective measures taken by the Archdiocese is “likely to contain material and necessary information as to the claims as issue” (McNierney v. Archdiocese of N.Y., 221 A.D.3d 489, 489, 199 N.Y.S.3d 55 [1st Dept. 2023];  see also J.L. v. Archdiocese of N.Y., 236 A.D.3d at 569, 231 N.Y.S.3d 28;  J.L. v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y., 222 A.D.3d 483, 484, 202 N.Y.S.3d 40 [1st Dept. 2023]).  Further, “[t]he Archdiocese did not demonstrate that the information sought” in the Tribunal File “implicated Canon Law or sacramental issues as might give rise to a First Amendment issue” (McNierney, 221 A.D.3d at 489, 199 N.Y.S.3d 55).

The Independent Reconciliation and Compensation Program (IRCP) files regarding the priest are also discoverable (see T.B. v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of N.Y., 237 A.D.3d 529, 529–530, 232 N.Y.S.3d 20 [1st Dept. 2025];  J.L., 236 A.D.3d at 569–570, 231 N.Y.S.3d 28).  As this Court has previously found, the disclosure of IRCP files, regardless of when created or gathered, is appropriate as they may “provide information about ‘the Archdiocese's response to child abuse claims during that time frame and whether there was a patterned response’ ” (J.L., 236 A.D.3d at 570, 231 N.Y.S.3d 28, quoting McNierney, 221 A.D.3d at 489, 199 N.Y.S.3d 55). Contrary to the Archdiocese's argument, the admissibility of the documents sought has no bearing on whether the information is discoverable (see J.L., 236 A.D.3d at 570, 231 N.Y.S.3d 28).