Status of Discovery in Denson Lawsuit

[smac97]

13 hours ago, provoman said:

Quote

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.

Here is a preliminary assessment:

1. Kristy Johnson previously sued her father for his purported sexual abuse of her as a child.  According to her, the abuse started when she was 6 (in 1969) and ended when she left home (which was apparently, but not definitely, when she left to serve a mission when she was 21, or around 1984).

2. Ms. Johnson is around 56 years old (she was 55 when this article was published in July 2018). 

3. Ms. Johnson states that she reported the abuse to the police (in California) when she returned home from her mission in 1986.  She also states that her father was never arrested as a result of this report, but that her father was excommunicated by the Church at this time (and was allowed to be re-baptized one year later).

4. Ms. Johnson filed a federal lawsuit against her father in June 2018, which includes extensive allegations of abuse (sexual and physical) by her father.  In the suit, Ms. Johnson makes a number of additional allegations:

• "When Kristy was approximately six years old , her mother discovered these sexual crimes against her daughter and reported the ongoing sexual abuse to their local bishop. In accordance with church policy, this crime was handled as a matter of sin, only, and the police were not called. Following this disclosure to the local bishop, the family was moved to a new home and Johnson was given a new position in the CES at an LDS seminary building in Ogden, Utah.  Johnson took Kristy to this building after school and, while there, sexually molested her on numerous occasions."
• "In approximately 1970, while living in Ogden, Utah, Kristy’s mother again reported the abuse to her local bishop, Bishop Ellis McAllister. This again was treated as an ecclesiastical matter, not a crime. Following this disclosure, the family was again relocated by Johnson’s employer, the Church, for so-called work reasons. They moved to Provo, Utah, where Johnson began working as a professor in the Religion Department of Brigham Young University."
• "While on the BYU campus, Johnson isolated Kristy in the confines of his office and sexually abused her on multiple occasions. These and other actions provoked another report of the abuse to the Church (and again these crimes went unreported to police). Following this disclosure in approximately 1973, the family was moved to California where Johnson began a new leadership position within the Church’s CES program."
• When Ms. Johnson returned from her mission (due to health issues), she and her siblings reported their father's abuse to the police.  The police did not arrest the father, but he did move out of the house.
• Ms. Johnson states that she was reprimanded by her stake president "for involving the police in a 'church matter.'"

5. The suit was settled through mediation, and the suit itself was dismissed in June 2018.

6. The suit did not name the Church as a defendant.

7. Per this article, Ms. Johnson is now "preparing to sue" the Church "under a newly-passed California law designed to help adults who were sexually assaulted as children."  The law is "California Assembly Bill 218," the text of which is available here.

8. The statute includes the following provision: 

Quote

In an action for recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual assault, the time for commencement of the action shall be within 22 years of the date the plaintiff attains the age of majority or within five years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by the sexual assault, whichever period expires later, for ... {a}n action for liability against any person or entity who owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, if a wrongful or negligent act by that person or entity was a legal cause of the childhood sexual assault that resulted in the injury to the plaintiff.

The statute also allows for treble (triple) damages against a defendant "who is found to have covered up the sexual assault of a minor" if the plaintiff "proves {the abuse} was as the result of a cover up."  However, this provision cannot be used "on or after the plaintiff’s 40th birthday," so I don't think it applies here, since Ms. Johnson is in her mid-50s.

9. I have only briefly skimmed the California bill/statute, but at first glance it does not seem like it can be easily applied here.  Ms. Johnson apparently turned 18 (the "age of majority" in California) around 1981, or 38 years ago.  Per the above statutory language, "the time for commencement of the action {that is, the deadline for filing the lawsuit} shall be within 22 years of the date the plaintiff attains the age of majority or within five years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by the sexual assault, whichever period expires later."  So there are two potential "statute of limitations" deadlines here:

Option A: 22 years after Ms. Johnson turned 18.  This would have been around 2003, or sixteen years ago.  So this one doesn't work.

Option B: "Within five years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by the sexual assault, whichever period expires later."  I assume this is the provision that Ms. Johnson hopes to use.  I think that will be difficult.  Essentially, she will need to claim that she suffered no discernible "psychological injury or illness ... caused by the sexual assault" late 2014 or later (which would be the start of 5-year time period allowed under the statute).  

Ms. Johnson states that she was extensively abused throughout her childhood, from age 6 to (possibly) age 21 (1984), and that at 22 or 23 (in 1986), she reported the abuse to the police.  Her legal theory, then, will necessarily be that she did not (and reasonably could not) have discovered that the extensive and horrific treatment she describes caused her any "psychological illness or injury" until late 2014 or later (again, the start of 5-year time period allowed under the statute).

In her lawsuit against her father (filed in June 2018), Ms. Johnson attributes extensive past and ongoing emotional/psychological injury to the purported childhood abuse by her father.  It seems likely that such things did not start in late 2014.  And given that she reported the purported abuse in 1986, it seems likely that the court would conclude that the time for her to have "discover{ed} or reasonably should have discovered" the link between these injuries and her childhood trauma has long since passed.

10. Notwithstanding the foregoing analysis, I anticipate that Mr. Vernon (Ms. Johnson's attorney) will file the suit anyway, since the date Ms. Johnson "discover{ed} or reasonably should have discovered" the link between these injuries and her childhood trauma is likely to require some factual inquiry.  That could mean that the lawsuit could survive a motion to dismiss.  That could also mean that the Church's attorneys would then need to delve into Ms. Johnson's personal life in order to determine the veracity of her claims, her mental health history, etc.  I'm not sure either side would want to be involved in such an invasive and uncomfortable process.  Moreover, perhaps there is some need for recompense given the purported failure of bishop(s) to properly address the abuse.  In other words, this case seems like a good candidate for a mediated settlement (which is what happened with Ms. Johnson's suit against her father). 

Then again, maybe not.  The California statute has the potential to invite mischief in the form of frivolous claims.  Mr. Vernon is clearly trying to create a cottage industry, and apparently likes the very expansive scope of the California law.  This article quotes Mr. Vernon as saying that "the California law will likely open several institutions like the Catholic Church, Mormon Church and Boy Scouts of America to many more lawsuits."  And since such lawsuits will likely pertain mostly to decades-old allegations, they will be very difficult to rebut in the legal arena (this is, after all, why we have statutes of limitation).  Again, the risk of invited mischief seems to be substantial.

11. Per this article, Mr. Vernon states that "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."  I think the Church's current policy is actually pretty good.  That policy is for the bishop to call a helpline and speak with an attorney, who can then offer legal advice on the matter (including, of course, compliance with mandatory reporting laws in a particular jurisdiction).

I've previously remarked on Ms. Johnson and Mr. Vernon here (pertaining to their remarks about her 2018 lawsuit against her father, which they used to foment ill will against, and to substantially misrepresent, the Church) :

Quote

Again, it is frustrating to see both Ms. Johnson and Mr. Vernon utterly ignore the Church's current policies and training for local leaders.  They are acting as if nothing has changed since Ms. Johnon was abused.  Worse, they are openly discouraging members of the Church from talking to their bishop.  Bishops are, in many (most?) jurisdictions, obligated by law to report allegations of abuse from pretty much anyone other than the perpetrator (confessions from whom are entitled to constitutional protections).  Bishops actually are reporting such allegations to law enforcement.  All the time.  And yet Mr. Vernon and Ms. Johnson and their ilk are painting a scary picture, that bishops are not to be trusted, that the Church is not to be trusted, that the Church is a horrible group of people "protecting sexual predators" at the expense of children. 

They are instilling fear and distrust in the minds of sexual abuse victims.  That's just not good.

I hope Mr. Vernon is moderating his stance, which last year involved him encouraging Latter-day Saints to not disclose abuse to their bishops, and which this year has him expressing a preference that bishops be trained to call the police directly when they encounter allegations of abuse.

Further prior remarks here:

Quote

In the case of Kristy Johnson, it looks like the local leaders did not report her father's misconduct to the police.  Unfortunately, that was a common thing 50 or so years ago.  By way of evidence, I point you to . . . Kristy Johnson's Complaint, in which she state that her mother, on at least two separate occasions, talked to their "local bishop" about Mr. Johnson's misconduct, but not the police (paragraphs 10-11).  Moreover, it appears that Kristy Johnson's mother was aware of some of the misconduct, yet still kept her children in the same home as Mr. Johnson.  For many, many years.  So do you likewise condemn Kristy Johnson's mother for not taking this matter to the police?  For keeping her children around her husband?  Are you going to publicly demand that she "acknowledge...make amends..and apologize with or without statutes because it is the RIGHT THING TO DO!"?  If not, why not?  I know that may come across as a little . . . judgmental.  But it's about as judgmental as you are being of the bishops in question, so I guess we're on equal footing on that point.

Moreover, Ms. Johnson states in her Complaint that she reported her father to the police after she returned home from her LDS mission.  And the result of this was . . . "[that] Johnson was not arrested," and instead he moved out of the home (paragraph 18).  So do you likewise condemn the police/prosecutor for not arresting/investigating/prosecuting Mr. Johnson?  If not, why not?

I am greatly saddened to hear about these sorts of stories.  But demonizing the LDS Church and its bishops for not properly addressing sexual assault allegations in decades past doesn't seem particularly helpful.  Society in general has in the past not been very good at handling misconduct of this sort.  We're all getting better.

And here:

Quote

Society teaches children to go to someone they trust when something bad happens to them.  That could be a parent, a teacher, a police officer . . . or a religious leader.

Now, it so happens that in some circumstances that parent or teacher or police officer or religious leader fails to take appropriate action in response to allegations of abuse.  That's what happened here.  Kristy Johnson's bishops failed to act property.  Kristy Johnson's mother failed to act properly.  The police, when they were eventually notified, apparently never arrested or sought a prosecution against Ms. Johnson's parents.  That is a great tragedy. 

In the ensuing decades, the LDS Church has recognized this and has gone to great lengths to give bishops training and resources as to how to handle allegations of sexual abuse.  And yet here we have Craig Vernon and Ms. Johnson publicly accusing the LDS Church of "protecting sexual predators" at the expense of children.  No acknowledgment of the Church's efforts to improve.  At all.  And no consideration given to the injury they are possibly doing to children by instilling them a sense of fear and distrust and loathing of bishops - the very people who the Church is training to properly handle these sorts of allegations.

What's next?  Is Mr. Vernon going to publicly encourage children to not tell their parents about sexual abuse they encounter?  After all, if Kristy Johnson's mother failed to act, then that must mean that all mothers everywhere are "protecting sexual predators."
...
So the Church already has some pretty good safeguards in place.  The Law of Chastity.  Clear policies for when priesthood leaders are meeting with youth or women (they are to be chaperoned).  A published-to-the-world "zero tolerance" policy for abuse by ecclesiastical leaders.  A helpline staffed with lawyers to help local leaders navigate legal complexities that can arise.  Sadly, there are still bad people in the world who will work to circumvest these safeguards.  

None of this is being acknowledged by the execrable Craig Vernon, who knows about all of these efforts, but also knows that these efforts undermine the false narrative he is crafting against the LDS Church.  And that narrative is useful for filing lawsuits, which in turn generate notoriety for him and sometimes hefty financial payouts as well.

I've long been disgusted at race hustlers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who make money off racial discord in society, and hence have an incentive to foment and exacerbate racial discord in society, and hence actually go out and act on that incentive.  At this point, I'm inclined to categorize Craig Vernon as about on par with these whackdoodles.  He's affirmatively injuring society by making false accusations and spreading fear and resentment and distrust, all so he can make a buck and get his name in the media.  That's pretty vile.

And here (same link):

Quote

Quote

Maybe church leaders should be more vocal about members contacting the police first and then following up with getting support and help healing from their church leaders second?

Have you ever worked with victims of sexual abuse (particularly by family members)?  As I see it three of the biggest impediments to them getting help are A) a feeling of helplessness, a lack of control over their lives, and B) profound confusion and despair at the abuse, and C) misplaced feelings of shame and guilt.  Going to the police can come across as exacerbating these things. 

If the police get involved, then the abuser may end up getting arrested (which can be distressing when it's a family member, even to the victim). 

If the police get involved, then the "secret" is out, which may enhance the confusion / despair / shame / guilt (at least that's the fear the victim may have).

If the police get involved, then the police (and/or DCFS) intrude into the home, ask very sensitive questions, and do so by the coercive power of government.  The victim's sense of helplessness or lack of control might actually get worse (again, that's the fear the victim may have at the prospect of contacting the police).

And so it goes.  But you know what?  The police and DCFS still need to be involved.  That is the decision our society has made, and I think it's a necessary one.  So my point is that sometimes the victim may not want to call the police (because of the above concerns), which is why a disclosure to the bishop becomes so valuable.  Bishops, after all, are generally good and decent men, and they have an obligation to monitor the welfare of their flock, and in most jurisdictions they have a legal obligation to report most allegations of abuse.  The Church, recognizing this, has spent considerable time and effort to create a helpline for bishops, a helpline that works (see above).  Bishops are not perfect, but they are clearly a net benefit in terms of addressing allegations of abuse.

And yet we have people likes of Craig Vernon, who goes out of his way to distort and hide what the Church has been doing about this issue, who is so vested in his opposition to the LDS Church (and, I think, his financial incentives stemming from his various lawsuits against the Church) that he is publicly trying to make LDS kids terrified and suspicious and distrustful of their church and their church leaders.

It's a pretty disgusting display.

Again, I hope Mr. Vernon is moderating his stance.

12. Turning from the dispassionate legal analysis above, I am deeply saddened and upset that Ms. Johnson appears to have been abused by her own father, and that societal safeguards (her mother, local bishops, law enforcement, etc.) did not stop the abuse or timely act on the allegations.  I hope she gets the help she needs.  I hope she finds peace.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 18, 2019 by smac97

[Amulek]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

What difference does it make if the Bishop has an attorney contact the police on his behalf rather than contacting them personally? So long as the abuse is being reported to the police in a timely manner, I don't see why it matters.

 

Quote

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.

But, in the case that Tacenda referenced, the outcome (were this to happen today) is clear. The Bishop learned of abuse from a witness - not from the abuser where priest-penitent privilege may apply. So when the Bishop calls the help line (just to be safe) he will be advised that he needs to contact the police - or that they would be willing to contact the police for him and make the report. Either way, the police will become involved at that point, which seems to be what is ultimately wanted. 

 

Edited October 18, 2019 by Amulek

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Amulek said:

What difference does it make if the Bishop has an attorney contact the police on his behalf, rather than contacting them personally? So long as the abuse is being reported to the police in a timely manner, I don't see why it matters.

I agree.  There is nothing wrong with the bishop communicating with law enforcement through legal counsel.  Everyone else in society is entitled to do so.

2 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Quote

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.

But, in the case that Tacenda referenced, the outcome is clear. The Bishop learned of abuse from a witness - not from the abuser where priest-penitent privilege may apply.

Yes.  50 years ago, our society - including the Church - was not handling allegations of abuse very well.  We still have plenty of room for improvement.

However, I think we need to be cautious about thinking that reporting allegations of abuse will fix everything.  Police often don't investigate.  Or if they do, sometimes the investigation is poor or perfunctory.  And if they investigate well, there is often not much in the way of substantive evidence.  And even then, they turn the matter over to the prosecutor, who then has all sorts of discretion as to what to prosecute or not, what the plead down, etc.  

In short, the legal system is not really the most effective means of combatting abuse.  Individual rectitude, moral clarity, and stringent adherence to the Law of Chastity will be far more effective.

2 minutes ago, Amulek said:

So when the Bishop calls the help line (just to be safe) he will be advised that he needs to contact the police - or that they would be willing to contact the police for him and make the report. Either way, the police will become involved at that point, which seems to be what is ultimately wanted. 

Yep.  But I think Mr. Vernon (Ms. Johnson's attorney) is looking for a way to shoehorn in some sort of grievance against the Church.  The Church's current policies are actually pretty good, and effective.  But acknowledging that would harsh Mr. Vernon's preferred The-Mormon-Church-protects-sexual-predators narrative.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

5. The suit was settled through mediation, and the suit itself was dismissed in June 2018.

Will this dismissal affect the current suit?

Edited October 18, 2019 by Calm

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Will this dismissal affect the current suit?

No.

[provoman]

@smac97 and @Kenngo1969 thank you for your input.

[Kenngo1969]

On 10/19/2019 at 11:22 AM, provoman said:

@smac97 and @Kenngo1969 thank you for your input.

👍  For what it's worth , any time.  

[topcougar]

She has an additional problem suing under the new statute. She reported to the Police when she returned from her mission about 40 years ago  and they did not prosecute - probably for lack of evidence ( i.e. witnesses).  Now Kristy needs evidence that the Church knew of the abuse (about 50 years ago) and tried to cover it up.  I doubt there  are  living witnesses. The disciplinary council on her father took place much later.  Kristy's mother is deceased. The Bishop Kristy's mother spoke to  is likely deceased.

Note Craig Vernon is not taking this case. Craig Vernon did not sure the Church in round 1.   Kristy does not have an attorney for this   case.  This is just a press opportunity.  

[smac97]

17 hours ago, topcougar said:

She has an additional problem suing under the new statute. She reported to the Police when she returned from her mission about 40 years ago  and they did not prosecute - probably for lack of evidence ( i.e. witnesses).  Now Kristy needs evidence that the Church knew of the abuse (about 50 years ago) and tried to cover it up.  I doubt there  are  living witnesses. The disciplinary council on her father took place much later.  Kristy's mother is deceased. The Bishop Kristy's mother spoke to  is likely deceased.

Note Craig Vernon is not taking this case. Craig Vernon did not sure the Church in round 1.   Kristy does not have an attorney for this   case.  This is just a press opportunity.  

How did we find out Craig Vernon is not taking the case?  I missed that bit.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

This article describes him differently than in previous cases, not as Johnson’s attorney but as one in Idaho.

I can’t include the link as it triggers 403  You will need to do a search using a sentence from the quote.  It is from a KUTV article.

”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.”

Perhaps he doesn’t have the ability to practice in California as he does in Utah.  Seems like they would have identified him as her lawyer as they did previously if he was officially representing her. 

Probably helping her with the PR though. 

The link needs to have the “return” removed and a dash restored if you want to use it, had to separate them as the two words no longer together were setting off 403 big time. 

[Calm]

From another KUTV article:

”In the mid-80s, after she served an LDS mission and after her family moved to Southern California, Johnson went to police there — but the abuse continued.

Her father was never questioned by police or arrested.”

These are Californian police, no reason to assume any position in the Church would have impressed them. And child abuse while not as hot a topic as now, was still taken relatively seriously by Utah police from what I remember so would be surprised if So Ca police were quite lax about it (there were several kidnappings and attempts in the early 80s in Utah including my boss’ preschool daughter who was taken to So Ca and found 6 weeks later, so I was well aware of the topic at the time, we had classes in RS about it, big drive to get all the kids’ fingerprinted and other ID kits).  It seems very strange that police didn’t bother to even talk to her father especially given she was an adult by then.  I am wondering why they didn’t see a need.  Did they talk to the mother and she denied it?  Did Johnson lack credibility by standards of that time somehow?  Seems like there has to be more to the story than simply the California police weren’t interested in getting involved in a sexual abuse case. 

The missing details do not make her case less credible in my view, just less judgable.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Calm

[topcougar]

November 15 has passed and McKenna Denson did not file the required status report on her efforts to retain new counsel.  There is a hearing on December 2.  I expect she will file another late request for more time. That has worked three times now. It will be very interesting to see what happens this time around. The Court has given her  three extensions and six months to fine new counsel. It seems unlikely that she has obtained or will obtain another attorney. She will have to actually proceed with representing herself if she wants the case to continue. No Judge wants to see that happen.  Self represented litigants are a burden to Judges and the court system.  

[esodije]

On 11/15/2019 at 6:40 PM, topcougar said:

November 15 has passed and McKenna Denson did not file the required status report on her efforts to retain new counsel.  There is a hearing on December 2.  I expect she will file another late request for more time. That has worked three times now. It will be very interesting to see what happens this time around.

I have a feeling that the parties (with some prodding by the judge) will stipulate to a dismissal without prejudice. Technically, it would mean Denson could re-file, but I expect the claim eventually to go gentle into that good night. I remember some ex-Mos accusing the judge of bias (being that he’s reportedly LDS and a BYU grad) when he dismissed most of the original complaint on SOL grounds. If anything, he’s been bending over backward, to the church’s detriment, to be “fair” to Denson. I think most judges not only would have granted the motion to dismiss as to all claims, but they would since have dismissed the suit for Denson’s failure to respond to discovery requests or to comply with court orders. Certain classes of people always seem to flog the wrong cases to promote a narrative. I know I felt a strange fascination with Denson’s sensational claims when the December 2017 audio recording surfaced, even though I felt all along that there would have to be a succession of other accusers and/or solid circumstantial corroboration—from those who knew Denson best in the MTC—to prove the allegations. I don’t know how much of a perv Robert L. Bishop really is, but I think it’s safe to say he’s not a Mormon Harvey Weinstein, as Denson predicted he’d be known.

[Avatar4321]

On 11/15/2019 at 7:40 PM, topcougar said:

November 15 has passed and McKenna Denson did not file the required status report on her efforts to retain new counsel.  There is a hearing on December 2.  I expect she will file another late request for more time. That has worked three times now. It will be very interesting to see what happens this time around. The Court has given her  three extensions and six months to fine new counsel. It seems unlikely that she has obtained or will obtain another attorney. She will have to actually proceed with representing herself if she wants the case to continue. No Judge wants to see that happen.  Self represented litigants are a burden to Judges and the court system.  

That's certainly true. I had clients as a publix defender who wanted to go pro se and we had to provide an extended colloquy to make sure the record reflected that they understood what they were doing.

[Avatar4321]

So is the dec. 2 date the next and possibly last hearing?

[smac97]

11 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

So is the dec. 2 date the next and possibly last hearing?

Hard to say that it will be the last hearing.  Probably not.  As I recall, the Church filed a "Motion to Compel" in May, and this needs to be addressed.  Ms. Denson and her attorneys had not responded to discovery requests made by the Church, which are requests for information/documentation to which Ms. Denson must respond within a specified period of time.  Her responses were due in April, and she has either failed to respond to inaccurately responded to many of these requests, as follows:

The Church's discovery requests included "interrogatories," which are written questions to which Ms. Denson must respond.  Here is one of these questions: "Interrogatory No. 2: Identify all social media accounts You control, including but not limited to Your Twitter handle(s), reddit username(s), Facebook profile(s), and podcast username(s)."

Per the Church's Motion to Compel: "Ms. Denson responded that she “does not have a Reddit username, nor does she have any podcast usernames.” But a simple search reveals that there is a reddit account under Ms. Denson’s name that posts information about Ms. Denson’s case."

Boy, it sure would be awkward if it turns out that she does have a Reddit username, but lied about that during in her response.  The legal consequences for lying in discovery responses can be significant.  At the very least, lying damages her credibility as a witness.  Moreover, if the Church ties Ms. Denson to her Reddit username, then anything and everything she has posted under that username becomes fair game for scrutiny in the lawsuit.  Given her tendency towards exaggeration/fabrication, it is possible - perhaps even likely - that she has told some whoppers on Reddit, and that these whoppers would damage her credibility as a witness.

Another: "Interrogatory No. 7: Identify every electronic device or cloud-based account capable of storing Documents that you own or use, or have owned or have used from November 2017 to present, including but not limited to, personal computers, tablets, smartphones, and data storage devices."

From the Church's Motion: "COP propounded this Interrogatory on March 14, 2019. Ms. Denson’s response was due on April 15, 2019. To date, Ms. Denson has not responded."

Again, given Ms. Denson's tendency towards exaggeration/fabrication, I can imagine that she's pretty uncomfortable with identifying electronic devices / cloud storage accounts.  The Church's attorneys would likely be entitled to go through these with a fine-toothed comb, and could perhaps find things she has written which would damage her credibility as a witness, contradict her claims, etc.

Another: "Interrogatory No. 8: Identify by email address every email account you have owned or used."

From the Church's Motion: "COP propounded this Interrogatory on March 14, 2019. Ms. Denson’s response was due on April 15, 2019. To date, Ms. Denson has not responded."

Ms. Denson, being a loose cannon, has possibly said all sorts of things in emails that could be damaging to her case and/or credibility.  Not surprising, then, that she does not want to respond to this discovery request.

Also from the Church's Motion:

Quote

Ms. Denson has not produced a single document in accordance with the Court’s Stipulated Scheduling Order (Docket 32). That order requires that “[a]ll documents will be produced in jpg, single-page tiff load files or other formats, suitable for being downloaded into CasePoint, Relativity, Concordance, Summation or other document management systems to be specified by counsel.” Contrary to this order, Ms. Denson’s first production was in the form of a single PDF document. Both the PDF format and the nonunitized nature of that production violate the order. Similarly, Ms. Denson’s second production was a thumb-drive containing hundreds of .htm files appearing to be screenshots of Facebook pages. There was no load file. The documents have no bates stamp. And the documents do not include any of the metadata required to be “suitable for being downloaded into CasePoint.”

This sounds more like sloppiness or poor legal work by Ms. Denson's attorneys.

The Church's Motion also lists the following "missing documents responsive to multiple requests":

Quote

Emails: Ms. Denson has not produced any of her emails. She has, however, indicated that she has regularly communicated with reporters and many others about her case.

Private Facebook Messages: Ms. Denson testified in her deposition that she has used private Facebook messages to communicate with individuals about her case. See, e.g., Denson Dep. 211-12 (excerpts attached as Exhibit B). Ms. Denson has produced some redacted copies of private messages (without load files). There is no legal basis on which Ms. Denson may redact the documents.

Notes of Conversations: Ms. Denson testified multiple times about notes that she keeps in her “secretary” desk. For example she testified she has notes about her conversations with Carmen Preece. Id. at 214-15. Similarly, she testified that she wrote notes about “Ted” that are in her secretary desk. Id. at 333-34. None of these notes have been produced.

Oi.  Imagine the things she has said in these formats.

Quote

Drafts of Book: Ms. Denson testified that she is writing a book. She stated “it’s a journal. It’s keeping track of everything that happens and who does what and who says what.” Id. at 189. And she confirmed that she is “writing it like a book as if it’s something that would be published.”  Ms. Denson has not produced any drafts of a book or journal matching the deposition testimony. Instead, she produced a single page outline. Counsel for Ms. Denson represented that this outline was the only thing Ms. Denson had written. Days later, Ms. Denson posted on Facebook that the “[f]irst draft] of the book was “’nearly completed’” and asked for donations to her PayPal and Venmo accounts.

Wow.  She used the prospect of purportedly having written a book as a pretext for asking for money from her supporters, saying she was "nearly" done with it.  But when obligated to produce her "book," she admitted that she had only written a one-page outline.  Did she commit fraud, then?  

Quote

Text Messages: Ms. Denson’s single-document PDF included some screenshots of text conversations with Ryan McKnight and Lori Draper-Smith. Attached as Exhibit D. Those are clearly incomplete and do not supply any metadata. Ms. Denson has not produced any other text messages.

Hmm.  It would be interesting to see her conversations with Mr. McKnight.

Quote

Video Files: Ms. Denson has not produced any video files. Ms. Denson, together with Michael Norton and others, recorded Ms. Denson addressing Mr. Bishop’s local congregation during worship services. Ms. Denson and others posted that video, in various edited forms, online. All of the footage (edited and unedited) is responsive to multiple requests. A copy of one of the edited videos is attached as Exhibit E.

Given Ms. Denson's falling out with Mike Norton, it will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

Another form of discovery request is a "Request for Production of Documents/Things," which is a request for Ms. Denson to provide documents or other items relevant to the suit.  From the Church's Motion:

Quote

{Request for Production} No. 11: All Documents or Communications regarding any lawsuit, threatened lawsuit, or claim in which You have been involved, including but not limited to Your prior lawsuits or claims against: PF Chang’s China Bistro, United Food Service, Balboa Dessert Company, McDonald’s, Heavenly Ham, California Dreaming, Franklin Life Insurance, Winslow BMW, Body Works Tanning Salon, Michael Reyes, James P. Smith, David Midkiff, Edward Tagge, Michael Hamrick, James Robinson, or Ronnie Smith.

Holy cow.  Look at how many lawsuits she has filed.  

More:

Quote

{Request for Production} No. 19: All Documents or Communications regarding Your past criminal convictions or criminal charges.

This would be interesting to see.

Quote

{Request for Production} No.  27: All Documents, regarding or Communications with Ryan McKnight, Ethan Dodge, Ethan Krok, MormonLeaks, or the Truth and Transparency Foundation relating to the subject matter of this case, Mr. Bishop, COP, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

{Request for Production} No.  28: All Documents regarding or Communications with Michael Norton relating to the subject matter of this case, Mr. Bishop, COP, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

These, too.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 22, 2019 by smac97

[provoman]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Hard to say that it will be the last hearing.  Probably not.  As I recall, the Church filed a "Motion to Compel" in May, and this needs to be addressed. 

Having read the motion to compel, I wondered if there was a relation to the motion and her attorney(s) asking to be be removed. In one Mike Nortons videos calls with her, he questions her on which reddit account(s) she used.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, provoman said:

Quote

Hard to say that it will be the last hearing.  Probably not.  As I recall, the Church filed a "Motion to Compel" in May, and this needs to be addressed. 

Having read the motion to compel, I wondered if there was a relation to the motion and her attorney(s) asking to be be removed.

I suspect that is the case.  I am presently working on a case where I represent the plaintiff, and the defendant is an obnoxious, loose-cannon, thinks-he-can-get-away-with-anything type (not unlike Ms. Denson).  He has gone through three sets of lawyers, at least two of of which have withdrawn because the defendant will not cooperate with them.

1 minute ago, provoman said:

In one Mike Nortons videos calls with her, he questions her on which reddit account(s) she used.

What a trainwreck.  Notwithstanding her vicious and ugly and false behaviors, I feel sorry for her.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Another: "Interrogatory No. 7: Identify every electronic device or cloud-based account capable of storing Documents that you own or use, or have owned or have used from November 2017 to present, including but not limited to, personal computers, tablets, smartphones, and data storage devices."

From the Church's Motion: "COP propounded this Interrogatory on March 14, 2019. Ms. Denson’s response was due on April 15, 2019. To date, Ms. Denson has not responded."

Again, given Ms. Denson's tendency towards exaggeration/fabrication, I can imagine that she's pretty uncomfortable with identifying electronic devices / cloud storage accounts.  The Church's attorneys would likely be entitled to go through these with a fine-toothed comb, and could perhaps find things she has written which would damage her credibility as a witness, contradict her claims, etc.

How much privacy does someone have when they are involved in a lawsuit? If I sue someone, does the defense really have the right to examine all of my personal electronic devices? All of my data? This is a little disturbing to me, given the vast amounts of personal information we keep on our devices and in the cloud. Am I missing something here?

[Anonymous Mormon]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Hard to say that it will be the last hearing.  Probably not.  As I recall, the Church filed a "Motion to Compel" in May, and this needs to be addressed.  Ms. Denson and her attorneys had not responded to discovery requests made by the Church, which are requests for information/documentation to which Ms. Denson must respond within a specified period of time.  Her responses were due in April, and she has either failed to respond to inaccurately responded to many of these requests, as follows:

The Church's discovery requests included "interrogatories," which are written questions to which Ms. Denson must respond.  Here is one of these questions: "Interrogatory No. 2: Identify all social media accounts You control, including but not limited to Your Twitter handle(s), reddit username(s), Facebook profile(s), and podcast username(s)."

Per the Church's Motion to Compel: "Ms. Denson responded that she “does not have a Reddit username, nor does she have any podcast usernames.” But a simple search reveals that there is a reddit account under Ms. Denson’s name that posts information about Ms. Denson’s case."

Boy, it sure would be awkward if it turns out that she does have a Reddit username, but lied about that during in her response.  The legal consequences for lying in discovery responses can be significant.  At the very least, lying damages her credibility as a witness.  Moreover, if the Church ties Ms. Denson to her Reddit username, then anything and everything she has posted under that username becomes fair game for scrutiny in the lawsuit.  Given her tendency towards exaggeration/fabrication, it is possible - perhaps even likely - that she has told some whoppers on Reddit, and that these whoppers would damage her credibility as a witness.

Another: "Interrogatory No. 7: Identify every electronic device or cloud-based account capable of storing Documents that you own or use, or have owned or have used from November 2017

I am not a lawyer nor very familiar with the legal process. However, if I sue someone they can then ask me for tons of personal information about myself that I have to make available to them and then is made available to the public? That seems like an awful deterrent for someone involved in a legitimate legal case.

(note: I am asking generally, not making inferences to the case at hand)

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

How much privacy does someone have when they are involved in a lawsuit?

Not much.  Particularly the plaintiff.  

51 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

If I sue someone, does the defense really have the right to examine all of my personal electronic devices? All of my data?

Not an unfettered right, but to an extent, yes.  There are lots of ways this invasiveness can be mitigated.  Protective orders being the most common.

51 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is a little disturbing to me, given the vast amounts of personal information we keep on our devices and in the cloud. Am I missing something here?

Nope.  Litigation can be an ugly and unpleasant process.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

I can’t help but wonder what in the world originally and actually happened to her as a child. 

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I can’t help but wonder what in the world originally and actually happened to her as a child. 

This.  I cannot judge her because I don't know her experiences prior to all that has happened.  All I ask is that if there is a 2nd or 3rd chance for  justice and for her to get her life in order...that it happens. 

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I am not a lawyer nor very familiar with the legal process. However, if I sue someone they can then ask me for tons of personal information about myself that I have to make available to them

Short answer: Yes, they can ask for this information, and you are generally obligated to respond.

Longer answer: There are a number of ways you can protect your personal information.  You can ask the court for a protective order.  For example, under Rule 37(a)(7) ofthe Utah Rules of Civil Procedure...

Quote

{t}he court may enter orders regarding disclosure or discovery or to protect a party or person from discovery being conducted in bad faith or from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, or to achieve proportionality under Rule 26(b)(2), including one or more of the following:

(a)(7)(A) that the discovery not be had or that additional discovery be had;
(a)(7)(B) that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place;
(a)(7)(C) that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery;
(a)(7)(D) that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the discovery be limited to certain matters;
(a)(7)(E) that discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the court;
(a)(7)(F) that a deposition after being sealed be opened only by order of the court;
(a)(7)(G) that a trade secret or other confidential information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way;
(a)(7)(H) that the parties simultaneously deliver specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the court;
(a)(7)(I) that a question about a statement or opinion of fact or the application of law to fact not be answered until after designated discovery has been completed or until a pretrial conference or other later time;
(a)(7)(J) that the costs, expenses and attorney fees of discovery be allocated among the parties as justice requires; or
(a)(7)(K) that a party pay the reasonable costs, expenses and attorney fees incurred on account of the statement of discovery issues if the relief requested is granted or denied, or if a party provides discovery or withdraws a discovery request after a statement of discovery issues is filed and if the court finds that the party, witness, or attorney did not act in good faith or asserted a position that was not substantially justified.

As you can see, there are plenty of ways you can ask the court to act in relation to discovery requests you are required to answer.  Nevertheless, the generalized public policy is that discovery is a broad-ranging activity, intended to allow the parties to discover relevant evidence.  This means that the other side can ask you questions that may facially have no relevance to the legal issues in dispute, but which may nevertheless lead to information that is relevant, such that these questions can be posed, and must be answered.

49 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

and then is made available to the public?

Maybe, maybe not.  As noted above, there are ways to have litigation documents "sealed" or otherwise be kept from public view.

49 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

That seems like an awful deterrent for someone involved in a legitimate legal case.

It can be.  Hence the need for lawyers, who sort out these things all the time.

49 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

(note: I am asking generally, not making inferences to the case at hand)

Sounds good.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I can’t help but wonder what in the world originally and actually happened to her as a child. 

Given her profligate dishonesty, I doubt we'll ever know.  She is an intensely untrustworthy person.  

On balance, I'm inclined to think that she had a bad childhood.  However, that does not give her unending carte blanche to behave the way she has.

Thanks,

-Smac