The Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco

• Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 26, 2025
• Docket: 23-30564
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT SS NG NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA □□□□ □□ 1 YX □□□□ Signed and Filed: March 26, 2025 □□□□□□ □□ 2 Mini hi whe 4 Vin An 0 5 DENNISMONTALL | U.S. Bankruptcy Judge 6 7 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 In re ) Bankruptcy Case 10 ) No. 23-30564-DM 11 THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP ) OF SAN FRANCISCO, ) 12 ) ) 13 Debtor. ) 14 ea) 15 16 MEMORANDUM DECISION ON MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING DISCLOSURE 1 OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES AND AGGREGATED CLAIMS DATA 7 18 INTRODUCTION 19 On March 13, 2025, the court conducted a hearing on The 20 Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors’ (“OCC”) Motion 21 (“Motion”) for an Order Authorizing Disclosure of Independent 22 Review Board Minutes (“Minutes”) and Aggregated Claims Data 23 (“Claims Data”) (Dkt. 988). Appearances are noted on the 24 record. 25 For the reasons explained below, the court will grant the 26 Motion as to the Minutes and grant the Motion, with 27 modifications, regarding the Claims Data. 28 =- 1 =-

II. BACKGROUND 1 2 Since around 2002, the Debtor has maintained an Independent 3 Review Board (“IRB”) that is an advisory board that investigates 4 and makes recommendations directly to the Archbishop concerning 5 cases in which a clergy member is accused of sexual abuse of a 6 minor, along with other related tasks. By the Motion, the OCC 7 seeks “disclosure of non-privileged portions of the IRB Minutes 8 for the sake of public safety because the Archdiocese continues 9 to assure the public that children are safe by emphasizing the 10 role of the IRB’s ‘expertise’ and their ‘independent’ evaluation 11 of sexual abuse allegations.” (Motion, page 1). The Minutes 12 that are specifically identified and which the OCC wants freed 13 from the court’s Order Approving Stipulated Protective Order 14 (“Protective Order”) (Dkt. 374) are set forth in a sealed 15 Exhibit B to the Motion. The information set forth in Exhibit B 16 is the product of discovery undertaken by the OCC, which 17 discovery is covered by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (“Rule 26(c)”) 18 incorporated by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7016 and subject to the 19 Protective Order. 20 The OCC also seeks to make public the Claims Data that it 21 has extracted and anonymized from hundreds of confidential 22 proofs of claim filed by abuse survivor claimants (the Survivor 23 Claimants”) in this case. The Claims Data is found in Exhibit A 24 to the Motion. It consists of six parts: the age range of 25 survivors at the beginning of abuse; the current age range of 26 survivors; specific types of abuse alleged in the proofs of 27 claim; the names of the perpetrators identified in the claims; 28 1 the parishes and parish schools where the abuses occurred; the 2 non-parish schools or orphanages where the abuses occurred. 3 The Claims Data is subject to the court’s Order: (1) Fixing 4 Time for Filing Proofs of Claim; (2) Approving Proof of Claim 5 Forms; (3) Providing Confidential Protocols; and (4) Approving 6 Form and Manner of Notice (“Bar Date Order”) (Dkt. 337) and 11 7 U.S.C. § 107(a) and (b) (“Section 107”). The controlling 8 authority that governs this court’s disposition in interpreting 9 and applying Section 107 is In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of 10 Portland in Oregon, 661 F. 3d 417 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Father M”). 11 Father M and the Protective Order dictate the outcome under Rule 12 26(c) insofar as Exhibit B is concerned; Section 107 controls 13 the outcome regarding Exhibit A.1 14 III. BANKRUPTCY PURPOSE OF THE MOTION 15 The Debtor argues there is no bankruptcy purpose for the 16 Motion. As there is no pending objection before the court, no 17 specific provision of the Bankruptcy Code or Rules discussing 18 19 1 While the Debtor’s Opposition and some caselaw interpreting 20 Father M tend to blend the separate analyses under Section 107 21 and Rule 26(c), the court clarifies that the text of Father M applies a Rule 26(c) analysis to discovery documents that were 22 subject to a protective order, and a Section 107 analysis applies to a sealed memorandum estimating damages due to clergy 23 abuse that was filed on the court’s docket. In this case and 24 mirroring Father M, a Rule 26(c) analysis is appropriate as to the Minutes that were produced in discovery pursuant to the 25 Protective Order. A Section 107 analysis is appropriate as to the Claims Data, which is aggregated from proofs of claim, but 26 for the court’s employment of a claims and noticing agent, would have been filed directly with the court. The Minutes have only 27 been filed under seal on this court’s docket as part of the 28 Motion—that alone does not mean the Minutes are “filed with the court” for Section 107 purposes. 1 the merits of the request, Debtor feels that the Motion is 2 presented for improper purposes. The court disagrees. 3 This is not a situation where a particular claimant is 4 prosecuting civil litigation against the Debtor, wherein the 5 facts and circumstances of whatever occurred were governed by 6 individualized specific facts and applicable law and that could 7 result in civil damages awarded to a single plaintiff. That was 8 the prospect Debtor faced before filing bankruptcy, albeit many 9 times over. Rather, presented here is a much broader question 10 dealing with the function of the bankruptcy court in this 11 substantial case involving hundreds of claims alleging clergy 12 abuse, all of which have been yanked out of traditional state 13 courts and have been thrust into this bankruptcy court, at the 14 Archbishop’s behest. This is an increasingly common situation 15 in the reorganization of an entity facing numerous similar tort 16 claims under the Bankruptcy Code, and invariably includes not 17 only the fixing and payment of allowed claims but also some sort 18 of curative, remedial or corrective conduct affecting future 19 actions and the protection of unwitting future victims.2 20

21 2 See, e.g., Corrected Order Confirming Debtor’s Plan of Reorganization Dated October 26, 2016, In re Roman Catholic 22 Bishop of Stockton, Case No. 14-20371-C-11, Dkt. 843 at Ex. 12 (containing all non-monetary commitments of the Debtor post- 23 confirmation, including a commitment to publishing a list of 24 clergy members credibly accused of abuse of minors, a letter of apology to all abuse claimants and/or family members, and public 25 forums at each parish and school where abuse had been alleged); Order Confirming Second Amended Chapter 11 Plan of 26 Reorganization Dated September 15, 2015, Proposed by the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, Case No. 11-20059-svk, Dkt. 3322 at 27 Sec. 13.5 (detailing nonmonetary commitments to child protection 28 and transparency, including commitment to publishing a list of 1 This is the way the bankruptcy system deals with wildfires, 2 drug purveyors, product defects, and countless other tort 3 liabilities owned to substantial numbers of unwitting and 4 involuntary claimants. The public purpose and the role of the 5 court is obvious and is a critical component of a critical 6 process. 7 In this case, as in many other bankruptcies involving mass 8 torts, the plan resolution is only successful when all parties, 9 including those tort claimants unwillingly brought into the 10 bankruptcy court, feel as though the process is fair and 11 progress is being made. They have an important role in the 12 process, albeit hard to measure in any tangible way. The OCC 13 has made clear that progress towards a consensual resolution is 14 not being made, and while the Debtor disagrees as to that, the 15 Motion serves as a possible step toward a consensually mediated 16 plan. This is an admirable goal. 17 Recently, another bankruptcy court addressed the bankruptcy 18 purpose of ensuring abuse survivors are heard:

19 The reality is that profound human, psychological, and spiritual aspects of church sex abuse cases transcend 20 tort damages. The bankruptcy reorganization process 21 may be proficient in the hard-headed business of marshaling diocesan resources and insurance coverage 22 available to fund tort damage payments, but it does little to heal festering psychological wounds. 23

24 Anything that promotes reconciliation, catharsis, and solace for sex abuse victims in a chapter 11 case 25 26 clergy members credibly accused of abuse of minors, a letter of 27 apology to all abuse claimants and a written statement of 28 gratitude to survivors of clergy abuse who were brave enough to come forward and tell their stories). serves the interests of justice and is a worthy task 1 for a bankruptcy judge. 2 Memorandum Order on Motion to Authorize Presentation of Survivor 3 Statements, E.D. Cal. Case No. 24-21326-C-11, Doc. 1153, page 2, 4 lines 11–24. 5 The Motion serves a clear bankruptcy purpose, and an 6 argument that no such purpose exists, from the very Debtor who 7 brought these claims and discovery into this court, is not 8 credible and is rejected. 9 IV. DISCUSSION 10 A. Exhibit A – Claims Data 11 Section 107(b) “require[s] courts to use care in 12 determining when documents containing sensitive information 13 affecting a person’s privacy interests can be made public over 14 that person’s objections.” Father M at 433. Here, the 15 objecting party is the Debtor, and as to the court’s inquiry 16 under Section 107, its focus shall be the Debtor’s privacy 17 interests and whether the information contained in Exhibit A 18 would be scandalous for the Debtor. The privacy interests of 19 the Survivor Claimants are analyzed in relation to the 20 confidentiality provisions of the Bar Date Order. The court 21 first addresses the interests of the Debtor, then the Survivor 22 Claimants. 23 Subject to certain exceptions, documents filed in a 24 bankruptcy case are public records. Section 107(a). “On 25 request of a party in interest, the bankruptcy court shall . . . 26 protect a person with respect to scandalous or defamatory matter 27 contained in a paper filed in a case under this title. Section 28 1 107(b)(2). The Debtor objects to Exhibit A’s being made public 2 on the grounds that Exhibit A contains scandalous matter. 3 Under Father M, “matter is ‘scandalous’ if it is 4 disgraceful, offensive, shameful, and the like . . . allegations 5 that a priest has sexually abused children are most assuredly 6 ‘scandalous’ because they bring discredit on the alleged 7 perpetrators.” Id. 8 The key difference between the facts of Father M and the 9 Motion here is that in Father M, the parties seeking to keep 10 sealed a specific memorandum measuring damages related to priest 11 abuse, were two individuals, anonymous priests purportedly named 12 in the memorandum and/or exhibits to the memorandum, and not the 13 Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland, Oregon. Here, the person 14 seeking to keep the Claims Data confidential is the Debtor, The 15 Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco. The scandal of 16 being an individual (and as yet publicly unknown) priest accused 17 of specific scandalous conduct is not at issue here as it was at 18 issue in Father M, and the court sees no reason to extend the 19 definition of scandal of accusation beyond the one actually 20 being accused. Section 107 and Father M cannot be broadly 21 applied in the way Debtor wishes, but it is clear to this court 22 that even if a specific priest is not seeking the protections of 23 Section 107, allegations against specific priests are indeed 24 scandalous due to the potential discredit brought upon them. 25 Thus, the names of perpetrators in Exhibit A that the Motion 26 seeks to make public must remain confidential. Identification 27 by initial only ensures scandalous material remains protected, 28 1 while allowing for information that would otherwise be deemed 2 public under Section 107(a) to be made public. 3 Next, the court turns to the Bar Date Order and the 4 confidentiality of Survivor Claimants’ information. The Bar 5 Date Order sets forth a procedure for those defined as Survivor 6 Claimants (those alleging claims against the Debtor for sexual 7 abuse by persons for which the Debtor was responsible). That 8 procedure was the filing of the Confidential Survivor Proof of 9 Claim and the Optional Confidential Survivor Supplement. The 10 Survivor Proofs of Claim and Optional Confidential Survivor 11 Supplements were to be filed with the claims agent on a strictly 12 confidential basis in order to maintain the privacy of the 13 Survivor Claimants. The purpose of the Bar Date Order was to 14 ensure Survivor Claimants felt safe enough to file claims in a 15 timely fashion to ensure the main purpose of this bankruptcy — 16 administration of the hundreds of claims of Survivor Claimants — 17 was successful. 18 The OCC filed the Motion. Sitting on the OCC are Survivor 19 Claimants who duly represent the interests of Survivor Claimants 20 generally. The OCC in this instance, however, cannot claim to 21 speak for all Survivor Claimants on the topic of the strict 22 confidentiality that those Survivor Claimants may have relied on 23 when submitting detailed proofs of claim. Thus, the court will 24 grant the Motion as to the Claims Data, with names of accused 25 priests removed or reduced to initials as discussed above, and 26 only after all Survivor Claimants are given notice and 27 opportunity to opt out of having their anonymized data be a part 28 of the Claims Data. To that end, the OCC should provide a 1 twenty-one (21) day written notice to each Survivor Claimant and 2 any counsel of record to request that any data included in the 3 Claims Data derived from their claims be extracted and excluded 4 from the Claims Data. Counsel for the OCC should meet and 5 confer with counsel for the Debtor to agree on the exact form of 6 the notice, and the court will resolve quickly any disagreement 7 as to that form. The court notes that opt out (that is, 8 requesting that Survivor Claimants respond only if they wish to 9 exclude their information from the aggregated claims data) is 10 appropriate. 11 The Claims Data, so revised, may then be made public by the 12 OCC. 13 B. Exhibit B – The Minutes 14 Father M sets forth the two-step test of Rule 26(c) a court 15 must follow upon a request to make public information that is 16 currently confidential pursuant to a protective order. “First, 17 it must determine whether particularized harm will result from 18 disclosure of information to the public . . .. Second, if the 19 court concludes that such harm will result from disclosure of 20 the discovery documents, then it must proceed to balance the 21 public and private interests to decide whether maintaining a 22 protective order is necessary.” Id. at 424 (internal citations 23 and quotation marks omitted). 24 As to the first step, Debtor does not allege any particular 25 harm that will result from the disclosure of the Minutes to the 26 public, beyond a general claim that the material of the Minutes 27 is scandalous pursuant to Section 107, as the Minutes contain 28 deliberations on the merits of abuse allegations against clergy 1 members and other employees of the Debtor. In Rule 26(c) 2 analysis, a general allegation that the material is the type of 3 “broad allegation[] of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 4 examples of articulated reasoning” that does not satisfy the 5 Rule 26(c) test. Id. 6 Without any particular harm articulated by Debtor, the 7 analysis under Rule 26(c) must end here. Without any particular 8 harm looming, there is no need to go to the second Father M 9 step. The Minutes should be made public under presumption of 10 public access to information produced during discovery. As to 11 whether material in the Minutes is scandalous to any accused 12 individual under Section 107, the Minutes are already anonymized 13 (via initialization or nicknames) and redacted, so the scandal 14 related to naming an individual accused of abuse of a minor is 15 already avoided. 16 Accordingly, the court will enter two orders consistent 17 with this Memorandum Decision. The first will be as to the 18 Minutes entirely, and counsel for the OCC should serve and 19 upload that order. The second will be granting the Motion in 20 part as to the Claims Data, to be served and uploaded after the 21 time has run for Survivor Claimants to opt out as to their 22 information. 23 24 **END OF MEMORANDUM DECISION** 25 26 27 28 COURT SERVICE LIST 1 ECF Recipients 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28