Start at De Laire v. VorisToday, Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., voted in favor of the. (D.N.H.):
[D]E Laire claims that defendants published defamatory materials and a video about her because they were involved in a doctrinal disagreement between a New Hampshire religious group and Catholic Church officials. The defendants served the Diocese of Manchester, which is not a party in the case, with a subpoena ….
In his role as Judicial Vicar, and Vicar of Canonical Affairs, de Laire works with the Bishop for Manchester in the Tribunal for the Diocese. Since 2016, de Laire has been involved in interactions with the Saint Benedict Center, Inc., an immigrant religious group from New Hampshire, as part of his official duties. He eventually placed sanctions on the group because of a doctrinal dispute with the Catholic Church….
The Complaint describes (and denials) the allegations of defamation as:
Current colleagues say that Father de Laire has been described as “emotionally unstable” in his position of chief canonical judge for the diocese, and counsel to his bishop. …
“[D]e Laire may be trying to save his reputation and his chance of being promoted to the Roman Curia as a bishop or official. …
Father de Laire … conduct[s]His duties were “with incompetence regarding canonical issues also apparent and corroborated by the Roman Curia.” …
“[D]These halls call e Laire “e Laire”. [of the Roman Curia] un incasinaroHe is known for his notoriously bungling canonical matters involving clergy. …
“Church militia has discovered that he’s currently outsourcing work products, which he as canon lawyer is being compensated well by the diocesan to finish.” …
Father de Laire was described by the laity and priests who work alongside him in the diocese, as “a vindictive and manipulative clergyman who longs for the title of bishop or an official of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.” …
“[A]t least three complaints against de Laire have been filed with the Holy See … [t]They allege corruption and abuse of office as well grave violations of law. …
“[A]dditional questions are raised … by his acquisitions … Church Militant has learned that de Laire now frequently resides at an estate located near Manchester that he … purchased, currently valued at $1.5 million.” [The court allowed the suit to go forward as to this statement, concluding that “Taken in the context of Voris’s article, the statements about de Laire’s home could be interpreted to raise questions about how de Laire purchased the home, and those statements reasonably could be linked to the accusation of corruption.” -EV] …
[D]Members of the Saint Benedict Center were no longer allowed to attend an aily Mass[.] [The court dismissed the suit as to this statement, concluding it was true -EV] …
[I]It was Father de Laire who, as an individual, had “attacked” the Saint Benedict Center just after his promotion to Judicial Viccar “about two year ago.” …
The dispute here concerns discovery. This is what the court ruled:
[As part of discovery, t]He demanded “”[a]The St. Benedict Center was sanctioned with all documents, not just communications with its agents but also all communications inside the diocesan and with any other body or organization. … The Diocese asserts that the information the defendants are seeking is protected from disclosure by the ecclesiastical exemption ….
“[I]Courts should consider all circumstances and try to avoid any “resolving fundamental controversies about religious doctrine”. Furthermore, the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause forbids civil courts to engage in excessive entanglement with employment disputes that “the protect ministerial relationship”.
However, de Laire’s claim in this instance is defamation. Both the subpoena and the defamation claims do not require the court to resolve ecclesiastical disputes or employment issues. The subpoena request and motion to compel are merely a means of raising a discovery question. Look! Dolquist V. Heartland Presbytery(D. Kan., 2004). (holding that First Amendment religious right protected by the church autonomy doctrine (and ministerial exception) did not prohibit questions regarding church investigation into sexual misconduct complaints. It hasn’t cited any case which persuasively supports an ecclesiastical exclusion from subpoena requests.
Scott v. Hammock(D. Utah 1990), The plaintiff sued her father for abuse she suffered as a child. A subpoena was served on the Office of the Presidency Bishopric of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints by the plaintiff to produce documents regarding the excommunication of defendants from the Church. The particular requests were communications between defendants and people present at a Bishop’s court. On the basis of Utah law privilege and the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, the church sought to quail the subpoena.
To avoid unconstitutional applications, the court looked at the Utah statute privilege which protected confessions made to clergymen or priests. The court found that church members can communicate confidentially with church officials and one another to enforce church discipline. The motion to quash regarding those confidential communications was therefore granted. The Diocese refers to the Scott case, it makes no effort to analogize the holding there to the circumstances presented here….
Whole Woman’s Health Vs. Smith (5th Cir. (2018), also cited the Diocese. The court criticised the lower court’s failure to properly examine a privilege question under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) or the First Amendment when denying a motion for quash a subpoena. It was aware of the First Amendment concerns that could arise from compelling discovery by a religious non-party organization, and especially compelling disclosures of internal communications. Despite this concern, the court applied the doctrines of constitutional avoidance and didn’t decide whether a privilege under RFRA was sufficient to prevent the disclosure of the requested documents. In accordance with Rule 45(d), it was decided that the subpoena had to be quashed in order not to place undue pressure on the parties.
The Fifth Circuit Women’s HealthIt was not held that religious institutions are protected against disclosures of their internal communications under an ecclesiastical privilege, or the First Amendment. It does not seem that there are any cases in which courts applied. Women’s HealthAs authority to grant an ecclesiastical privilege in the face of discovery pursuant to the First Amendment
Request 5 does not contain any argument by the Diocese that documents sought in Request 5 could hinder its freedom to exercise religion as allowed under the First Amendment. Although there was an underlying dispute between Saint Benedict Center, Diocese, it did not arise from a doctrinal conflict. The merits of this dispute will not be before the court and they will not be determined here. The Diocese has not carried its burden of showing that an ecclesiastical privilege or the First Amendment bars production of the information sought ….
[T]he defendants [also]The Diocese was asked to make “[a] list of all canonical proceedings or matters in which de Laire was involved, in any capacity, for the period January 1, 2011 through today.” … The defendants represent … that the request was subsequently limited to “matters that happened after January 1, 2020 and to matters involving clergy and marriages.” Diocese objects to motion to compel. It claims that the request was changed to contain a date restriction for the 6 year period before the first article was published. i.e.However, it does not recognize a limitation in subject matter.
They claim that de Laire’s ability to perform his duties as canonist is directly related to the information they are seeking. The defendants have not specifically mentioned the statements they seek, but it appears that they are responding to several statements made by de Laire’s associates, alleging that de Laire was incapable and had bungled cases. The motion discusses certain complaints which, according to them, were identified July 8, 2021. They concern dissolution of a married relationship.
As a privilege, the Diocese once again invokes an exempt or abstention ecclesiastical from production. As is discussed above, the Diocese has not shown that such a privilege exists for purposes of discovery and have not shown that the First Amendment protects against production of the documents requested here….