Status of Discovery in Denson Lawsuit

[topcougar]

Here is minute entry from the docket.  I read this a little differently than the news accounts of the hearing.   the order is contradictory in terms of dates, but  there is more of an implication of consequence in the actual order than was suggested by the reporting. The Court wants to make sure Denson has ample opportunity to be represented, but there is a requirement for Denson to account for her efforts an the Magistrate  clearly intends to move forward with dispositive motions lurking in the wings: 

"Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead: Minute Entry. Status Conference held before Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead August 19, 2019: Mckenna Denson appeared pro se and telephonically. Counsel for Defendant, David J. Jordan and Wesley F. Harward, appeared telephonically. Ms. Denson indicated that she is in contact with three law firms regarding representing her, however, at this time, she has not secured successor counsel. She requested additional time to secure counsel. Defendant did not oppose Ms. Denson's request. Therefore, for good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

 

1. Ms. Denson shall have until October 1, 2019 to secure counsel.

 

2. If Ms. Denson is unable to secure counsel by said date, she will need to file a status report by September 25, 2019 informing the Court about her efforts to secure counsel during the intervening six weeks.

 

3. A telephonic status conference is scheduled for October 1, 2019 at 10:00 AM to discuss Ms. Denson's efforts to secure counsel. The status conference will be canceled should Ms. Denson retain an attorney between today and October 1, 2019.

 

4. The deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order 32 and the Order Granting in part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel 59 are hereby stayed until further order of the Court.

 

Telephone Status Conference set for 10/1/2019 at 10:00 AM in Rm 7.100 before Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead."

 

[esodije]

So, supposedly Denson has her pick of three law firms and is trying to decide on one? That seems pretty unlikely—we’ll see.

[Judd]

6 minutes ago, esodije said:

So, supposedly Denson has her pick of three law firms and is trying to decide on one? That seems pretty unlikely—we’ll see.

No, she is “in contact” with three law firms.

[Kenngo1969]

On 8/19/2019 at 2:00 PM, smac97 said:

... During today's hearing, she told the judge that proceeding without lawyers "would be foolish" for her (she's quite right about that).  But if she can't find an attorney . . . 

Thanks,

-Smac

Alas, her belated recognition of what "would be foolish" will, I think, do her little good at this point.  She's "been foolish" by the tractor-trailer full heretofore, in all manner of ways.

[Nacho2dope]

I know she has until October 1st but any word on if she has counsel or if she is still even seeking counsel? Thanks 

[Avatar4321]

On 9/20/2019 at 4:28 PM, Nacho2dope said:

I know she has until October 1st but any word on if she has counsel or if she is still even seeking counsel? Thanks 

No one has entered their appearance as of yet

Edited September 25, 2019 by Avatar4321

[Nacho2dope]

Anyone have any updates on this? Thanks

[topcougar]

Here is the minute entry from today's hearing:

 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead: Status Conference held before Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead October 1, 2019: Mckenna Denson appeared pro se and telephonically. Counsel for Defendant, David J. Jordan and Wesley F. Harward, appeared in person. Ms. Denson indicated that she has visited with new counsel who wants an additional 60 days to review the matter and determine whether their schedule will permit representation. Defendant did not oppose Ms. Densons request for an additional stay of 60 days. Defense counsel provided a contact number for Ms. Denson to give to new counsel. The court strongly encouraged Ms. Denson to have new counsel contact Mr. Jordan as soon as possible. The request for an additional stay until Monday December 2, 2019 is granted. Further the court orders as follows:

1. Ms. Denson is to file a status update by November 15, 2019, if her new counsel has not filed a notice of appearance on the record. This status update is to provide details about new counsels intent, any review of the case and whether Ms. Denson will be appearing pro se.

2.A Telephonic Status Conference is set for December 2, 2019 at 10:30 AM in Rm 7.100 before Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead. If new counsel has entered an appearance on the record by this date the hearing will be stricken. The parties are to also discuss a new proposed schedule by this same date if new counsel has entered an appearance.

[Calm]

Do we know if she identified new counsel or just said she had it?  Since it was by telephone, doesn't seem like she provided info on it, but perhaps she had electronically conveyed documents demonstrating she wasn't lying.

[bluebell]

How many extensions is she going to get?  Can this keep going for years?

[topcougar]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

How many extensions is she going to get?  Can this keep going for years?

It will not go on for years.  In order to create a clear record and have an appeal proof dismissal both the court the the defendant ( in this case the church ) have an interest in giving her lots of rope.  This will eliminate any argument that she did not receive due process of law. 

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, topcougar said:

It will not go on for years.  In order to create a clear record and have an appeal proof dismissal both the court the the defendant ( in this case the church ) have an interest in giving her lots of rope.  This will eliminate any argument that she did not receive due process of law. 

Makes sense.

[topcougar]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Do we know if she identified new counsel or just said she had it?  Since it was by telephone, doesn't seem like she provided info on it, but perhaps she had electronically conveyed documents demonstrating she wasn't lying.

No, I do not think she identified her counsel on the record. A judge would generally not probe into who she had consulted, as that is considered privileged at this point.  I am sure everyone in the room wondered if she wondered  if Mckenna was telling the truth but  it does not matter, they need to give her the benefit of the doubt to insure there is due process. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, topcougar said:

No, I do not think she identified her counsel on the record. A judge would generally not probe into who she had consulted, as that is considered privileged at this point.  I am sure everyone in the room wondered if she wondered  if Mckenna was telling the truth but  it does not matter, they need to give her the benefit of the doubt to insure there is due process. 

Thanks for all the info. Very interesting 

[Avatar4321]

Thank you for the update

[esodije]

The problem is simple—Denson can’t pay a lawyer on an hourly basis and no lawyer with any business acumen will touch the case on a contingent-fee basis. Denson’s accusations haven’t triggered a cavalcade of other Bishop accusers, and so little is known about the ones there are that I put little or no stock in them.  The anti-Mos have milked all the bad publicity pertaining to the church that there was to be had.  All that’s left is (a) the word of a woman with crippling credibility issues against (b) the word of an old man with severe memory issues, in (c) a case based on events that supposedly happened 35+ years ago.  The sad part is that we probably won’t ever hear now from Denson’s ex-husband or her MTC companion and/or district-mates.

[topcougar]

The anti-Mos have

On 10/3/2019 at 11:31 AM, esodije said:

The problem is simple—Denson can’t pay a lawyer on an hourly basis and no lawyer with any business acumen will touch the case on a contingent-fee basis. Denson’s accusations haven’t triggered a cavalcade of other Bishop accusers, and so little is known about the ones there are that I put little or no stock in them.  The anti-Mos have milked all the bad publicity pertaining to the church that there was to be had.  All that’s left is (a) the word of a woman with crippling credibility issues against (b) the word of an old man with severe memory issues, in (c) a case based on events that supposedly happened 35+ years ago.  The sad part is that we probably won’t ever hear now from Denson’s ex-husband or her MTC companion and/or district-mates.

Yes the anti-Mos have milked the bad publicity and she is of no further use to them.  She had an opportunity for a monetary settlement before she let the Anti- Mos take her claims public.  Now there is not even nuisance value on the table. The Anti-Mos have used here and have moved on to the next complainant without any regard to what might have been best for McKenna. 

[The Nehor]

Well surely they will all pitch in and help her pay for a lawyer to see this through.

 

 

 

.....nope, I could not keep a straight face.

[esodije]

On 10/4/2019 at 11:50 PM, The Nehor said:

Well surely they will all pitch in and help her pay for a lawyer to see this through.

.....nope, I could not keep a straight face.

Yeah, just like they've stepped into the breach to fund the scouts now that the latter are more tolerant and accepting and the church is getting out. [Snicker.]

[Tacenda]

Another gal suing the church for basically the same thing:

I've watched the documentary about Kristy Johnson's story. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10494468/

She is now suing the church ever since California made a new law that says you can sue institutions as well as individuals that contributed to sexual abuse of children. I can't post the link to this because I get the 402 forbidden post. But it was on KUTV news on Oct. 16th.

SALT LAKE CITY (KUTV) — Kristy Johnson, now a resident of Utah, is preparing to sue The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints under a newly-passed California law designed to help adults who were sexually assaulted as children.

 

California Assembly Bill 218 becomes law in 2020.

Unlike Utah law, which allows adults who were victimized as children to sue perpetrators as individuals, the California law also allows victims to sue entities and institutions that covered up the sexual assault or allowed it to happen when they had the power to stop it.

“These places that have purposely covered up, I don’t care who you are, it’s time to pay the price for that,” Johnson said.

Johnson’s story is the subject of a documentary, "No Crime in Sin."

Johnson said she was six years old, living in her native state of California with her family, when her father began assaulting her.

Her mother walked in on one of the assaults and went to her local church leader, but was discouraged from going to police and was reminded that reporting the crime could hurt her children if their father lost his job.

She said her father eventually moved to Utah, where he was a seminary teacher for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then taught at Brigham Young University.

Johnson said the abuse continued until she was 18. When she returned from her Church mission as a young adult, she decided to report to police in California.

Her father was eventually excommunicated from the Church. He currently lives in Utah.

She and her sibling recently confronted her father about the assaults. That confrontation is part of the documentary.

Johnson said the California law will ensure that institutions, like churches, stop treating sexual assault by religious leaders as a sin that is to be handled as an internal matter, and instead call police.

“If someone reports a crime to you, help them go to law enforcement,” she said.

Craig Vernon, an Idaho attorney who has filed several lawsuits on behalf of victims of child sexual assault, said the California law will likely open several institutions like the Catholic Church, Mormon Church and Boy Scouts of America to many more lawsuits.

He said the hope is institutions will change policies when it comes to reporting sexual assault.

Vernon said he would like to see The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints make changes to its protocol so bishops are instructed to call police directly when they become aware of sexual abuse.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints declined to comment for this report, but offered a link to information its policies: "How the Church Approaches Abuse," and a link to a web page of resources for those experiencing abuse.

 

 

 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Her mother walked in on one of the assaults and went to her local church leader, but was discouraged from going to police and was reminded that reporting the crime could hurt her children if their father lost his job.

[...]

Johnson said the California law will ensure that institutions, like churches, stop treating sexual assault by religious leaders as a sin that is to be handled as an internal matter, and instead call police.

        “If someone reports a crime to you, help them go to law enforcement,” she said.

Craig Vernon, an Idaho attorney who has filed several lawsuits on behalf of victims of child sexual assault, said the California law will likely open several institutions like the Catholic Church, Mormon Church and Boy Scouts of America to many more lawsuits.

He said the hope is institutions will change policies when it comes to reporting sexual assault.

Vernon said he would like to see The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints make changes to its protocol so bishops are instructed to call police directly when they become aware of sexual abuse.

Except, of course, the church already has changed its policies when it comes to reporting sexual assault. 

If the incident described in the article were to happen today, the Bishop would have reported the abuser to the police. 

I suspect Craig Vernon is aware of that, so I would be curious as to what additional "changes" to protocol he might have in mind. 

 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Amulek said:

I suspect Craig Vernon is aware of that, so I would be curious as to what additional "changes" to protocol he might have in mind. 

Church leaders don't call police directly (unless I assume asked to by victims or perpetrators and they already know the law allows them to or believe the law does...or don't care about the law).  He wants that to change.

I think the law would have to change in many states and countries to allow calling directly to police in every case to happen when abuse is learned of in confidential settings.  At this stage, the church policy is to follow the law.  Calling the help line helps leaders know what it is.

[provoman]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Another gal suing the church for basically the same thing:

Not sure how much that California law is going to help her.

A entity can be sued if the entity "owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, if [the] wrongful or negligent act by that ... entity was a legal cause of the childhood sexual assault that resulted in the injury to the plaintiff."  Or an entity can be sued "if an intentional act by that ...entity was a legal cause of the childhood sexual assault that resulted in the injury to the plaintiff."

Perhaps @smac97 or @Kenngo1969 or some of the other more legal astute could explain what "legal cause of the" assault would mean.

From my understanding the abuse was committed by a parent.

Edited October 18, 2019 by provoman

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, provoman said:

From my understanding the abuse was committed by a parent

It appears the claim is a church leader dissuaded the mother from reporting it and therefore the abuse continued.

Has she sued her mother?

[Kenngo1969]

@provoman I'm not a lawyer. @smac97  ?   And even if I were, I couldn't speak to California law.  I'm not sure what those who drafted the law in question had in mind when they used the term "legal cause."  These are simply general observations, not legal advice. 

Generally, in order for a plaintiff to prevail in a tort (civil wrong) action, s/he must show two kinds if causation: (1) that but for the defendant's wrongful act or omission, the harm alleged would not have occurred (often called "but for" causation); and (2) legal or proximate causation, that the harm is so closely related in time and circumstance to the defendant's act or omission that the defendant should be held liable for the harm caused.

The statute's drafters probably are referring to the latter, but, honestly, I don't know.