Preview
JONES DAY
250VESEY STREET • NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10281.1047
TELEPHONE: +1.212.326.3939 • FACSIMILE: +1.212.755.7306
DIRECTNUMBER:(212) 326-3429
TRGEREMIA@JONESDAY.COM
September 9, 2019
BY NYSCEF
The Honorable Steven M. Jaeger
Child Victims Act -- Regional Part
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County
100 Supreme Court Drive
Mineola, New York 11501
Re: CVA Cases Against The Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre
(see attached table for listof allactions)
Dear Justice Jaeger:
We represent The Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre (the "Diocese") in all
actions brought against itpursuant to CPLR 214-g, as part of the Child Victims Act ("CVA").
We write pursuant to Your Honor's Part Rules and Procedures to request a pre-
respectfully
motion conference. The Diocese is a named defendant in what are now 46 separate actions-
most of which are pending in Nassau County Supreme Court, but inchiding several filed in
Supreme Court in Suffolk, Kings, and New York Counties as well. The Diocese seeks pre-trial
censolidation of these actions pursuant to CPLR 602 so that pre-trial motion practice, discovery,
settlement efforts, and other pre-trial matters can be conducted more efficiently and, to the extent
feasible, in a streamlined fashion for the Court and the parties.
As Your Honor is aware, the CVA provides for a one-year window, which opened on
August 14, 2019, for clai-+s to assert previeüsly time-barred claims alleging intentional or
negligent acts causing injury as a result of specified sexual offenses against a person 18 years of
age or younger. To date, the Diocese has been named as a defendant in 46 cases commenced
pursuant to CPLR 214-g. Attached to this letter is a table listing those actions. The Diocese is
scheduled to be before Your Honor for a Preliminary Conference in approximately 20 of those
cases this Wednesday, September 11. This Court has been designated as the CVA Regional Part
for the Ninth and Tenth Districts, as part of an assignment system announced by the Office of
Court Administration in an August 13, 2019 press release. As such, and pursuant to the recently
re-issued Rules for the Regional Child Victims Act Part for the Ninth and Tenth Judicial
Districts, our understanding is that all of the CVA actions filed against the Diocese in the Ninth
and Tenth Judicial Districts will be assigned to Your Honor for allpre-trial proceedings (with the
exception of proceedings involving requests to proceed anonymously).
AMSTERDAM • ATLANTA • BEIJING • BOSTON • BP!SB^NE • BRUSSELS • CHICAGO • CLEVELAND • COLUMBUS • DALLAS • DETROIT
DUBAI • n099er nORF • FRANKFURT • HONG KONG • HOUSTON • IRVINE • LONDON • LOS ANGELES •MADRID • MELBOURNE
MEXICO CITY • MIAMI • MILAN • MINNEAPOLIS • upgrew • MUNICH • NEW YORK • PARIS • PERTH • PITTSBURGH • SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO • SÂO PAULO • SAUDI ARABIA • SHANGHAI • SILICON VALLEY • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TAIPE1• TOKYO • W^9umGTON
JONE S DAY
The Honorable Steven M. Jaeger
September 9, 2019
Page 2
To date, while the CVA actions filed against the Diocese in the Ninth and Tenth Districts
appear to have been assigned to Your Honor pursuant to the OCA's directive, they are currently
separate actions and appear to be on track to proceed independently through pre-trial processes.
The Diocese will seek to address this, however, by moving to consolidate pre-trial proceedings in
all of the CVA actions in which itis named as a defendant, pursuant to CPLR 602. Pre-trial
consolidation of these actions is,we respectfully submit, the most efficient, economical, and fair
way for these actions to proceed. See DAVID D. SIEGEL & PATRICK M. CONNORS, NEW YORK
(66 remed[y]"
PRACTICE § 128, at 258 ed. 2018) (noting that consolidation is a "preferred
because it calendar congestion and legal and judicial effort"); see also
"reduce[s] economize[s]
id. at 259 ("Consolidation is even more liberal than permissive joinder and that is liberal
indeed."). The Diocese anticipates that itwill file motions to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211,
that one or more of the grounds for those motions will implicate allof the CVA actions brought
against the Diocese, and that many of the other grounds will implicate claims asserted in a large
number of the cases. The parties should not be 46 (or separate motions to diemiac
briefing more)
on separate schedules, nor, the Diocese submits, will the Court want to receive and address 46
separate motions to dismiss. That process should be aggregated to the extent feasible so that
parties'
briefing is streamlined and the and the Court's resources are conserved. Nor should the
Court or the parties be subjected to multiple schedules for the Preliminary Conferences and other
periodic conferences called for by Section 202.72 of the Uniform Civil Rules and the CVA
Rules. Similarly, coordination of discovery, and motion practice in connection with discovery,
parties'
will result in efficiencies and preservation of the and the Court's resources. For
example, any individuals to be produced by the Diocese for a deposition should not have to be
produced 46 separate times. Nor should the Diocese be subjected to 46 separate timelines for the
issuance of discovery and responses to discovery. Common issues that arise in connection with
discovery should also be addressed by the parties and, ifnecessary, resolved by the Court, in an
organized fashion and not piecemeal. Confidentiality orders and case management orders should
also be coordinated.
Pre-trial consolidation is also, the Diocese respectfully submits, the best mechanism to
keep these actions aligned with the CVA Rules promulgated by the Office of Court
Administration. Those Rules state that courts should proceed with CVA cases promptly and
efficiently and, as noted, convene periodic status conferences. See 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 202.72(3).
The Rules also call for courts to be mindful in addressing scheduling issues of pending insurance
coverage actions, the benefits of alternative dispute resolution processes, and the difficulties of
conducting discovery in actions that put in issue events alleged to have occurred many years ago
and, in some cases, many decades ago. See id. § 202.72(4). Again, these and other matters are
best addressed in a streamlined, coordinated fashion, not separately and in a scattershot way
across scores of different cases.
JONE S DAY
The Honorable Steven M. Jaeger
September 9, 2019
Page 3
The Diocese also believes that the parties and the Court may benefit from consolidation
of ADR proceedings-and streamliñcd focused on insurance and other settlement-
discovery
related issues at the outset in connection with such proceedings-and that some or all of the
actions may be resolved through such efforts or, if not,narrowed for further pre-trial
proceedings. In this vein, the Court should be aware that the Diocese has, to date, successfully
resolved more than 275 claims of 441dhand sexual abuse through an indepcñdcñt mediation
program, with more than 75 claims stillpending in that program.
Finally, all of the considerations outlined above apply with even greater force with
respect to the handful of CVA actions pending against the Diocese in the Supreme Court in
Suffolk, Kings, and New York Counties. While our understanding is that the actions in Suffolk
will be assigned to Your Honor as the Ninth and Tenth District CVA Regional Part, the actions
against the Diocese in Kings and New York Counties are currently in a different CVA Regional
Part. It isneither fairnor efficient for the court system or the Diocese to be expending resources
to conduct pre-trial proceedings in different CVA Regional Parts. Because nearly all of the CVA
actions against the Diocese have been brought in Nassau County-and because Nassaw County is
where these claims allegedly arose-the Court should order, pursuant to CPLR 602(b), that these
actions filed in Kings and New York Counties be removed to Nassau County and consolidated
for pre-trial purposes with the CVA actions against the Diocese that are before Your Honor. See
CPLR 602(b) ("Where an action is pending in the supreme court itmay, upon motion, remove to
itself an action peding in another court and consolidate itor have ittried together with that in
the supreme court.").
The Diocese does not have Mimited resources to defend these CVA actions, and ithas
long been committed to providiñg compcñsation to and reconciling with individuals who have
meritorious claims. The Diocese therefore respectfully submits that the most fair, efficient,
timely, and resource-conserving
manner in which to address the CVA actions brought against it
is to consolidate them for pre-trial purposes pursuant to CPLR 602. The Diocese is prepared to
move for such relief promptly or to accept Your Honor's guidañce with respect to how to
otherwise proceed. We will also be prepared to discuss this issue at the upcoming September 11
Preliminary Conference before Your Honor.
We thank the Court for itsattention to these matters.
Respectfully submitted,
Todd R. Geremia
JONE S DAY
The Honorable Steven M. Jaeger
September 9, 2019
Page 4
Enclesüre: Table of CVA Cases Against the Diocese of Rockville Centre
cc: All counsel who have appeared in cases on attached table (by NYSCEF)
Justice Silver, Regional Child Victims Act Part for New York City (by NYSCEF)
Preview
JONES DAY 250VESEY STREET • NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10281.1047 TELEPHONE: +1.212.326.3939 • FACSIMILE: +1.212.755.7306 DIRECTNUMBER:(212) 326-3429 TRGEREMIA@JONESDAY.COM September 9, 2019 BY NYSCEF The Honorable Steven M. Jaeger Child Victims Act -- Regional Part Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County 100 Supreme Court Drive Mineola, New York 11501 Re: CVA Cases Against The Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre (see attached table for listof allactions) Dear Justice Jaeger: We represent The Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre (the "Diocese") in all actions brought against itpursuant to CPLR 214-g, as part of the Child Victims Act ("CVA"). We write pursuant to Your Honor's Part Rules and Procedures to request a pre- respectfully motion conference. The Diocese is a named defendant in what are now 46 separate actions- most of which are pending in Nassau County Supreme Court, but inchiding several filed in Supreme Court in Suffolk, Kings, and New York Counties as well. The Diocese seeks pre-trial censolidation of these actions pursuant to CPLR 602 so that pre-trial motion practice, discovery, settlement efforts, and other pre-trial matters can be conducted more efficiently and, to the extent feasible, in a streamlined fashion for the Court and the parties. As Your Honor is aware, the CVA provides for a one-year window, which opened on August 14, 2019, for clai-+s to assert previeüsly time-barred claims alleging intentional or negligent acts causing injury as a result of specified sexual offenses against a person 18 years of age or younger. To date, the Diocese has been named as a defendant in 46 cases commenced pursuant to CPLR 214-g. Attached to this letter is a table listing those actions. The Diocese is scheduled to be before Your Honor for a Preliminary Conference in approximately 20 of those cases this Wednesday, September 11. This Court has been designated as the CVA Regional Part for the Ninth and Tenth Districts, as part of an assignment system announced by the Office of Court Administration in an August 13, 2019 press release. As such, and pursuant to the recently re-issued Rules for the Regional Child Victims Act Part for the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts, our understanding is that all of the CVA actions filed against the Diocese in the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts will be assigned to Your Honor for allpre-trial proceedings (with the exception of proceedings involving requests to proceed anonymously). AMSTERDAM • ATLANTA • BEIJING • BOSTON • BP!SB^NE • BRUSSELS • CHICAGO • CLEVELAND • COLUMBUS • DALLAS • DETROIT DUBAI • n099er nORF • FRANKFURT • HONG KONG • HOUSTON • IRVINE • LONDON • LOS ANGELES •MADRID • MELBOURNE MEXICO CITY • MIAMI • MILAN • MINNEAPOLIS • upgrew • MUNICH • NEW YORK • PARIS • PERTH • PITTSBURGH • SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO • SÂO PAULO • SAUDI ARABIA • SHANGHAI • SILICON VALLEY • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TAIPE1• TOKYO • W^9umGTON JONE S DAY The Honorable Steven M. Jaeger September 9, 2019 Page 2 To date, while the CVA actions filed against the Diocese in the Ninth and Tenth Districts appear to have been assigned to Your Honor pursuant to the OCA's directive, they are currently separate actions and appear to be on track to proceed independently through pre-trial processes. The Diocese will seek to address this, however, by moving to consolidate pre-trial proceedings in all of the CVA actions in which itis named as a defendant, pursuant to CPLR 602. Pre-trial consolidation of these actions is,we respectfully submit, the most efficient, economical, and fair way for these actions to proceed. See DAVID D. SIEGEL & PATRICK M. CONNORS, NEW YORK (66 remed[y]" PRACTICE § 128, at 258 ed. 2018) (noting that consolidation is a "preferred because it calendar congestion and legal and judicial effort"); see also "reduce[s] economize[s] id. at 259 ("Consolidation is even more liberal than permissive joinder and that is liberal indeed."). The Diocese anticipates that itwill file motions to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, that one or more of the grounds for those motions will implicate allof the CVA actions brought against the Diocese, and that many of the other grounds will implicate claims asserted in a large number of the cases. The parties should not be 46 (or separate motions to diemiac briefing more) on separate schedules, nor, the Diocese submits, will the Court want to receive and address 46 separate motions to dismiss. That process should be aggregated to the extent feasible so that parties' briefing is streamlined and the and the Court's resources are conserved. Nor should the Court or the parties be subjected to multiple schedules for the Preliminary Conferences and other periodic conferences called for by Section 202.72 of the Uniform Civil Rules and the CVA Rules. Similarly, coordination of discovery, and motion practice in connection with discovery, parties' will result in efficiencies and preservation of the and the Court's resources. For example, any individuals to be produced by the Diocese for a deposition should not have to be produced 46 separate times. Nor should the Diocese be subjected to 46 separate timelines for the issuance of discovery and responses to discovery. Common issues that arise in connection with discovery should also be addressed by the parties and, ifnecessary, resolved by the Court, in an organized fashion and not piecemeal. Confidentiality orders and case management orders should also be coordinated. Pre-trial consolidation is also, the Diocese respectfully submits, the best mechanism to keep these actions aligned with the CVA Rules promulgated by the Office of Court Administration. Those Rules state that courts should proceed with CVA cases promptly and efficiently and, as noted, convene periodic status conferences. See 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 202.72(3). The Rules also call for courts to be mindful in addressing scheduling issues of pending insurance coverage actions, the benefits of alternative dispute resolution processes, and the difficulties of conducting discovery in actions that put in issue events alleged to have occurred many years ago and, in some cases, many decades ago. See id. § 202.72(4). Again, these and other matters are best addressed in a streamlined, coordinated fashion, not separately and in a scattershot way across scores of different cases. JONE S DAY The Honorable Steven M. Jaeger September 9, 2019 Page 3 The Diocese also believes that the parties and the Court may benefit from consolidation of ADR proceedings-and streamliñcd focused on insurance and other settlement- discovery related issues at the outset in connection with such proceedings-and that some or all of the actions may be resolved through such efforts or, if not,narrowed for further pre-trial proceedings. In this vein, the Court should be aware that the Diocese has, to date, successfully resolved more than 275 claims of 441dhand sexual abuse through an indepcñdcñt mediation program, with more than 75 claims stillpending in that program. Finally, all of the considerations outlined above apply with even greater force with respect to the handful of CVA actions pending against the Diocese in the Supreme Court in Suffolk, Kings, and New York Counties. While our understanding is that the actions in Suffolk will be assigned to Your Honor as the Ninth and Tenth District CVA Regional Part, the actions against the Diocese in Kings and New York Counties are currently in a different CVA Regional Part. It isneither fairnor efficient for the court system or the Diocese to be expending resources to conduct pre-trial proceedings in different CVA Regional Parts. Because nearly all of the CVA actions against the Diocese have been brought in Nassau County-and because Nassaw County is where these claims allegedly arose-the Court should order, pursuant to CPLR 602(b), that these actions filed in Kings and New York Counties be removed to Nassau County and consolidated for pre-trial purposes with the CVA actions against the Diocese that are before Your Honor. See CPLR 602(b) ("Where an action is pending in the supreme court itmay, upon motion, remove to itself an action peding in another court and consolidate itor have ittried together with that in the supreme court."). The Diocese does not have Mimited resources to defend these CVA actions, and ithas long been committed to providiñg compcñsation to and reconciling with individuals who have meritorious claims. The Diocese therefore respectfully submits that the most fair, efficient, timely, and resource-conserving manner in which to address the CVA actions brought against it is to consolidate them for pre-trial purposes pursuant to CPLR 602. The Diocese is prepared to move for such relief promptly or to accept Your Honor's guidañce with respect to how to otherwise proceed. We will also be prepared to discuss this issue at the upcoming September 11 Preliminary Conference before Your Honor. We thank the Court for itsattention to these matters. Respectfully submitted, Todd R. Geremia JONE S DAY The Honorable Steven M. Jaeger September 9, 2019 Page 4 Enclesüre: Table of CVA Cases Against the Diocese of Rockville Centre cc: All counsel who have appeared in cases on attached table (by NYSCEF) Justice Silver, Regional Child Victims Act Part for New York City (by NYSCEF)