John Doe et al. Nos. 1-3
Commonwealth of Massachusetts No. 132848
Date January 29, 2016
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON THE
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
J. CURRAN, Associate Justice.
plaintiffs are parents of four children, ages 2 through to 5,
who were raped or sexually molested by a state-paid teacher
while in the charge of The Children's Center, a child
day-care program at Bridgewater State University.
defendant Commonwealth of Massachusetts has moved to dismiss
the plaintiff parents' complaint. For the following
reasons, this motion must be DENIED.
lawsuit was brought in equity, seeking information as to an
alleged cover-up of the heinous crimes claimed to have been
perpetrated on little children. There have been two public
records requests to determine the nature and extent of the
cover-up. The state has stonewalled those parents'
complaint for discovery seeks direct evidence of the
defendant Commonwealth's violation of Title IX of the
Education Amendment of 1972. Such a lawsuit may be maintained
" to aid the plaintiff in a suit which he intends
immediately to bring . . . if the [complaint] discloses a
cause of action." Wolfe v. Massachusetts Port
Authority, 366 Mass. 417, 419, 319 N.E.2d 423 (1974).
their lawsuit, the plaintiff parents have detailed various
past efforts to obtain information to support their
allegations and the inadequacy of traditional discovery
methods to obtain critical evidence of actual notice by
state-employed supervisors of an alleged child molester's
predatory actions, their cover-up, and their failure to
report the sex crimes to lawful authorities.
Commonwealth has moved to dismiss the parents' complaint
because it claims that they have failed to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. But a complaint for discovery
has, for over forty years, been recognized as a legally
viable method to obtain discovery and falls " within the
historic ancillary jurisdiction of the equity court."
Wolfe v. Massachusetts Port Authority, 366 Mass.
417, 419, 319 N.E.2d 423 (1974). It is a perfectly
appropriate legal means where the plaintiffs plan a cause of
action for which information is needed and have alleged facts
that justify recourse to a bill of discovery. Wolfe
at 422. The children, ages two through 5, cannot speak for
themselves; and their parents cannot find out the details
regarding their own children's rape and molestation
because the state has decided to protect its own employees.
The parents of these little children have been thwarted in
their effort to substantiate a Title IX action.
the individuals involved are criminal defendants: one of them
is a teacher charged with two counts of rape with force, and
indecent assault and battery upon a child; a second, his
supervisor, has been arrested and charged with reckless
endangerment of children, witness intimidation, the failure
to file a section 51A child abuse report, as well as
misleading legal authorities. If those criminal defendants
were questioned in this pending civil case, they
would--properly and without any doubt--invoke their
constitutional privilege against self-incrimination under the
Fifth Amendment. The parents' attempt to depose them
would be fruitless; the children cannot speak for themselves;
and only certain university officials know the depth of
criminality that happened and the cover-up that allowed this
alleged depravity to occur and fester. That knowledge is
uniquely within the state's power to provide.
they do not wish to disclose it.
they argue what amounts to the legal technicality that the
plaintiffs' complaint for discovery does not offer the
parents a means of obtaining relief, that the parents have
failed to demonstrate the public records statute affords them
redress, and that they have not abided by it. But the
Commonwealth is dead wrong.
record discloses that there have been two public records
requests directed at appropriate university officials to find
out what happened, i.e., who knew what and when.
These are simple requests, and yet the Commonwealth, knowing
full well that those two requests to date have been fruitless
and an utter waste of time, engages in gamesmanship in
continuing to deny these parents the relief to which they are
entitled. These families have now been traumatized twice:
once by the rape and molestation of their little children,
and second, by certain government representatives who appear
more concerned with protecting their own employees and
preventing the ...