Order Page 1 of 2

21-CV-00855 Michael Veitch v. Benedictine Foundation of The State of Vermont, Inc. d/b/a Weston Priory, et al 

### VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION

Windsor Unit

12 The Green

Woodstock VT 05091

802-457-2121

www.vermontjudiciary.org Case No. 21-CV-00855

Michael Veitch

Plaintiff

v.

Benedictine Foundation of the State of Vermont, Inc.,

d/b/a Weston Priory, and Jesuits USA East Province

f/k/a Jesuits New England Province

Defendants

Decision on Defendants’ Motion for a Hybrid Hearing

Plaintiff Michael Veitch alleges that he was the victim of childhood sexual abuse perpetrated

by a Jesuit priest. At issue is a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by the defendant

Jesuit organizations, e.g., Edwardo v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence , 66 F.4th 69, 74–76 (2d

Cir. 2023); Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Greensburg , 581 F.Supp.3d 176, 190–95 (D.D.C.

2022). In a previous order, the court determined that an evidentiary hearing was warranted, e.g.,

Godino v. Cleanthes , 163 Vt. 237, 239 (1995); Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, Inc. v. Paton

Insulators, Inc ., 146 Vt. 294, 296 (1985). In this motion, defendants seek permission for a witness to

testify at that hearing by remote means.

Generally, the rule is that civil division hearings are held in person. Vt. R. Civ. P. 43.1(a)(1). A

party may seek permission for a witness to testify by remote means, and the court may determine

whether good cause exists to grant the request by considering a non-exclusive list of factors that

include “[w]hether the procedure would allow for full and effective examination and crossexamination of witnesses by all parties and the court, including access to any documentary or other

tangible evidence necessary to the examination or cross-examination of any witness,” and “[w]hether

the use of video or audio conferencing technology diminishes or detracts from the dignity, solemnity,

and formality of the proceeding or undermines its integrity, fairness, or effectiveness.” Vt. R. Civ. P.

43.1(h).

Here, defendants seek permission for Father Quinn to testify remotely. He is the witness whose

affidavit was attached to the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. He is a licensed lawyer

who describes himself as a special assistant to the organization for legal affairs, and he describes his

role as involving the coordination of Jesuit responses to cases involving childhood sexual abuse

perpetrated by former priests. His testimony is expected to include descriptions of the corporate

structure of the Jesuit organizations who have been sued in this case, the history of Jesuit activities in

the State of Vermont, and a review of the employment and supervision history of the priest who is

### allegedtohave

### sexuallyabused

### plaintiff.

### Athisdeposition,

### Father

### Quinntestifiedthathehas

### “reviewednumerous

### files”onthepriestand

### “studiedendless

### catalogsto

### figureoutwherehehadbeenstationedoverthe

### years,”andhe

### testifiedthatheis

### familiar

### withthewhereabouts

### ofthepriest

### duringthe

### relevanttimeperiods.

### Athisdeposition,his

### testimonyrelatedtotheseissuesspannedmorethan150pagesandreferenced

### multipledocumentsand

### exhibits.

### Additionally,at

### hisdeposition,he

### testifiedunderoaththathedidnot

### knowtheanswerstocertainquestionsasto

### whichhelatermadeavermentsunderoath

### inhis

### affidavit.Defendantscontendthatremote

### testimonyisappropriatebecause

### Father

### Quinn

### livesand

### worksin

### New

### YorkCity,andbecausethetrip

### isabouttenhoursround-trip

### bycar,andbecausethe

### Jesuitswouldbe

### “withouthisusual

### services

### fortwoorthreedays

### whilehe

### traveledto

### Woodstock,Vermont,and

### backto

### New

### Yorkforthis

### hearing,”andbecausetheneed

### forhistestimonyis

### “minor.”

### Astotheseassertions,

### however,thecourtnotesthat

## (l)Father

### Quinnisan

### organizationalwitness

### whowasselected

### bydefendantsto

### reviewthematerialsandserveasthecoordinator

### ofthe

### organization’sresponsetothematter,

### (2)Father

### Quinnisthe

### witnessupon

### whose

### affidavitdefendants

### relyfortheir

### motionto

### dismiss,

### (3)Father

### Quinndescribedhis

### workas

### involvingthe

### coordination

### ofJesuitresponsestocases

### involvingchildhoodsexualabuseperpetrated

### byformerpriests,

### (4)Father

### Quinn’sdepositionwas

### extensive,and

### involvedreview

### ofmultipledocumentarymaterials,and

### (5)Father

### Quinntestifiedathisdepositionthathe

### didnot

### knowthe

### answertoquestionsasto

### whichhelater

### (inthe

### affidavitattachedtothemotionto

### dismiss)assertedunderoaththathe

### knewtheanswers.

### Itis

### evidenttothecourt,therefore,that

### Father

### Quinn’stestimony

### willbeessentialtothe

### disposition

### ofthemotion,thathe

### isnottangential

### factwitnessbutratherthe

### organizationalwitnessselectedtorepresentthe

### organization

### inthismatter,andthatthe

### effectiveness

### ofcross-examination

### willbeessentialtothesearch

### fortruth.

### Californiav.

### Green,399

### U.S.149,158

### (1970).

### Additionally,the

### motioniscentraltothesubstantiveoutcome

### ofthecase,andtheburden

### oftravelingfrom

### New

### YorkCityto

### Vermontmustbe

### weighedagainsttheimportance

### ofthecaseto

### plaintiff,whoallegesthat

### childhoodsexualabusehascaused

### himto

### suffer

### “severeandpermanent

### psychological,emotional,and

### physicalinjuries,shame,

### humiliation,andthe

### inabilitytoleadnormal

### life.”Underthese

### circumstances,the

### court’sconclusionisthatin-person

### testimonyis

### necessarytoeffectuate

### “fulland

### effectiveexaminationand

### cross-examination”

### ofthe

### witness,as

### wellastohonorthe

### “dignity,solemnity,and

### formality”

### ofthe

### proceeding,andensureits

### “integrity,fairness,[and]

### effectiveness.”

### Vt.R.

### Civ.P.

### 43.1(h).

### Forthesereasons,themotion

### for

### hybridproceedingisdenied.

### Electronicallysignedon

### Thursday,

### April4,

### 2024pursuantto

### V.R.E.F.9(d).

# Pfi%wH.

### DicksonCorbettSuperior

### Court

### JudgeVermontSuperiorCourtFiledWindslg/r€14?OrderPageof2l-CV-00855MichaelVeitchv.BenedictineFoundationofTheStateofVermont,Inc.d/b/aWestonPriory,etal