The Roman Catholic Diocese of Ogdensburg, New York

1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________
In re: 	:
:
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE 	:
OF OGDENSBURG, NEW YORK, 	:
: 	Case No. 23-60507 (PGR)
Debtor. 	: 	Chapter 11
__________________________________________:
APPEARANCES:
BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC 	CHARLES J. SULLIVAN, ESQ.
Counsel for Debtor
One Lincoln Center, Syracuse, New York 13202
PACHULSKI STANG ZIEHL & JONES LLP 	IIAN D. SCHARF, ESQ.
Counsel for Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
1700 Broadway, Ste 36th Floor, New York, New York 10019
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 	TANCRED V. SCHIAVONI, ESQ.
Counsel for Century Indemnity Company,
as successor to CCI Insurance Company, as
successor to Insurance Company of North America
1301 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1700, New York, New York 10019
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
PERMITTING NON-TESTIMONIAL SURVIVOR STATEMENTS
“The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be
heard.” Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394, 34 S. Ct. 779, 783, 58 L. Ed. 1363
(1914).
Signed this 27 day of October, 2025.
Patrick G. Radel
_______________________________
United States Bankruptcy Judge
So Ordered.
Case 23-60507-6-pgr Doc 1102 Filed 10/27/25 Entered 10/27/25 15:59:09 Desc
Main Document Page 1 of 11

2
“When I have been listened to and when I have been heard, I am able to re-
perceive my world in a new way and to go on.” CARL ROGERS , Experiences in
Communication, in A WAY OF BEING 5, 12 (1980).
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Ogdensburg is a debtor in bankruptcy because
over one hundred individuals filed lawsuits seeking compensation for alleged clerical
sexual abuse. (Declaration of Rev. Kevin J. O’Brien, Docket No. 7, at ¶ 44). Presently
pending is a motion by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (“Committee”)
to allow those individuals the opportunity to be heard. (Docket No. 1050). The motion
is granted.
Jurisdiction
This Court has core jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this
contested matter under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b) and 157(b)(2). 	Venue is proper in this
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.
Background
The Diocese is a religious corporation canonically established in 1872 and
incorporated pursuant to a special act of the New York Legislature in 1945. (O’Brien
Declaration, Docket No. 7, at ¶ 2, 20). 	The Diocese, by and through its offices,
parishes, and ministry entities, provides religious services and performs charitable
work across eight counties in northern New York State. Id. at ¶ 22.
The Diocese is a named defendant in 124 lawsuits brought by individuals
alleging clerical sexual abuse. Id. at ¶ 44. The Diocese filed a voluntary petition for
relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on July 17, 2023. (Docket No. 1).
Case 23-60507-6-pgr Doc 1102 Filed 10/27/25 Entered 10/27/25 15:59:09 Desc
Main Document Page 2 of 11

3
According to the Diocese, it sought bankruptcy relief to maximize its assets (including
insurance) to provide the “greatest recovery for the greatest number” of abuse
survivors; 	to 	create 	an 	orderly 	claims 	administration 	process 	and 	achieve 	an
equitable distribution; and to allow the Diocese to survive and “continue to fulfill its
charitable, humanitarian and religious mission in service of the Catholic faith.”
(O’Brien Declaration, Docket No. 7, at ¶45).
Approximately 130 individuals filed proofs of claims in this case alleging
sexual abuse. (Docket No. 1050, at ¶ 2). 	The Diocese, Committee, and various
insurance 	companies 	have 	been 	engaged in 	mediation 	with 	a 	court-appointed
mediator since January of 2024. (Docket No. 69, Adversary Proceeding 23-80013-6).
On September 26, 2025, the Committee moved for an Order permitting non-
testimonial “survivor statements.” (Docket No. 1050). Century Indemnity Company,
as successor to CCI Insurance Company, as successor to Insurance Company of North
America (“Century”) filed a response in opposition to the motion on October 14, 2025.
(Docket No. 1083). 	The Committee filed a reply in further support of the requested
relief on October 20, 2025. (Docket No. 1089).
This Court held a hearing on October 21, 2025, in Utica, New York, with
appearances by, and arguments from, the above-named counsel. 	The Diocese’s
counsel advised that the Diocese supports the motion and that the Bishop of the
Diocese would attend the conference(s) and listen to the survivor statements. 	The
motion was granted over Century’s objection. This Court’s reasons for that ruling are
set forth below.
Case 23-60507-6-pgr Doc 1102 Filed 10/27/25 Entered 10/27/25 15:59:09 Desc
Main Document Page 3 of 11

4
Analysis
The Committee requests an Order scheduling two days of survivor statements,
with sexual abuse claimants being offered the opportunity to address this Court and
the Bishop regarding their experience. The survivor statements would be voluntary
and non-testimonial, with the stipulation that the statements will not be transcribed
and cannot be used in any other proceeding or for any other purpose. The claimants
would not be subject to cross-examination and other parties will not respond to the
statements.
The Committee argues that the statements would provide valuable validation,
empowerment, closure, and healing to survivors of sexual abuse. 	In addition, the
Committee believes the statements will promote the claimants’ engagement with,
and confidence in, the bankruptcy process, thereby facilitating their support for the
consensual plan of reorganization the parties hope to develop through mediation.
Century does not directly deny the benefits cited by the Committee, but
opposes the motion by arguing that (1) survivor statements are not authorized by the
Bankruptcy Code and, in fact, conflict with important evidentiary rules and (2)
hearing survivor statements will taint this Court as a trier of fact.
This Court finds Century’s arguments unavailing.
First, the Bankruptcy Code gives the abuse claimants the right to be heard and
grants this Court the authority and discretion to conduct conferences and hear from
parties in a pending case.
Case 23-60507-6-pgr Doc 1102 Filed 10/27/25 Entered 10/27/25 15:59:09 Desc
Main Document Page 4 of 11

5
Section 1109 (b) of the Code states that parties in interest, including creditors,
“may appear and be heard on any issue in a case under [Chapter 11].” 11 U.S.C. §
1109 (b). The Supreme Court described this provision as “capacious” and intended to
ensure “[b]road participation,” which “promotes a fair and equitable reorganization
process.” Truck Ins. Exch. v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., 602 U.S. 268, 277, 280-81 144
S. Ct. 1414, 1424-25, 219 L. Ed. 2d 41 (2024).
In addition, Section 105 (d) of the Code not only grants bankruptcy courts the
power to conduct conferences, but states that they “shall hold such status conferences
as are necessary to further the expeditious and economical resolution” of their cases.
11 U.S.C. § 105 (d)(emphasis added); see also 2 Collier on Bankruptcy P 105.08
(discussing Congress’s intention to “mandate” status conferences); In re Gulf Coast
Oil Corp., 404 B.R. 407, 425 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2009) (“Bankruptcy Code § 105(d)
requires a bankruptcy court to hold a case management conference ….”).
Although Rule 5001 (b) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure requires
that trials and hearings be “held in open court,” it permits other proceedings to be
conducted “in chambers anywhere within or outside the district.” Fed. R. Bankr. Pro.
5001 (b). This Rule is derived from former Bankruptcy Rule 501(b). See 12 COLLIER
ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 501.6 (14th ed. 1978). 	In discussing former Rule 501 (b),
Collier’s explains that the Rule “is in keeping with the judicial power to do all things
and perform all acts necessary to speed the case to a conclusion….” Id.
Case 23-60507-6-pgr Doc 1102 Filed 10/27/25 Entered 10/27/25 15:59:09 Desc
Main Document Page 5 of 11

6
Century notes that in 2024 two members of the House of Representatives
introduced a bill that would, inter alia, expressly permit victim impact statements in
Chapter 11 cases. (Docket No. 1083-4).
The desire of two House members to codify the survivors’ right to offer
statements does not mean that this Court does not already have the statutory and/or
inherent authority to permit such statements. See generally In re Nunn, 49 B.R. 963,
964 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1985)(“Section 107(a) provides that papers filed in a case under
Title 11 of the United States Code are of public record. This is merely a codification
of the common law general right to inspect judicial records and documents.”); Riggs
v. Dayco Prods., Inc., No. 1:05CV91, 2006 WL 8455907, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 22,
2006)(“Rule 12(f) reflects the inherent power of the Court to prune down pleadings so
as to expedite the administration of justice and to prevent abuse of its process.”);
Gerzof v. Miller (In re Miller), 14 B.R. 443, 447 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1981)(“It seems
obvious from the very existence of a bankruptcy court’s equitable powers, that
Congress did not intend to provide expressly for all of the court’s prerogatives.”).
Indeed, Bankruptcy Rule 5001(b) is akin to Rule 77(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, which has long been recognized as a codification of the court’s
inherent authority to conduct bench conferences. See 1 Bankruptcy Litigation § 5:318
(Steinberg 2025); B.H., 49 F.3d at 298.
Second, the proposed conference falls well within the “traditional authority of
a judge to speak privately with the parties to a suit, whether in bench conferences or
in chambers.” 14 Moore’s Federal Practice § 77.03 (3d ed. 2024)(quoting B.H. v.
Case 23-60507-6-pgr Doc 1102 Filed 10/27/25 Entered 10/27/25 15:59:09 Desc
Main Document Page 6 of 11

7
McDonald, 49 F.3d 294, 297-98 (7th Cir. 1995)); see also In re Roman Cath.
Archbishop of Baltimore, No. 23-16969-MMH, 2025 WL 2314793, at *7 (Bankr. D.
Md. Aug. 11, 2025)(“Case law and the federal rules have long recognized a court’s
ability to manage its own docket and to conduct certain activities and proceedings in
chambers or otherwise outside the designated courtroom.”); see also generally United
States v. Town of Moreau, N.Y., 979 F. Supp. 129, 134 n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 1997), aff’d sub
nom. United States v. Glens Falls Newspapers, Inc., 160 F.3d 853 (2d Cir. 1998).
Third, Century’s argument that the proposed conference violates the rules and
procedures 	applicable 	to 	witness 	testimony 	fails 	because 	the 	statements 	will
expressly not be considered evidence and will not be admissible in any proceeding to
prove (or disprove) any dispute issue(s).
Fourth, nearly all the bankruptcy courts to consider this issue have found
survivor statements to be a permissible and appropriate exercise of discretion. See In
re Roman Cath. Bishop of Sacramento, 667 B.R. 577 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2025); In re
Archbishop of Baltimore, 2025 WL 2314793, at *6-*7; Amended Order Granting
Application 	to 	Schedule 	a 	Status 	Conference 	with 	Presentation 	of 	Survivor
Statements, Docket No. 829, In re The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco
(Bankr. N.D. Cal., Case No. 23-30564-DM, Aug. 28, 2024); Order Granting Motion of
the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for Entry of an Order Permitting
Nontestimonial Survivor Statements, Docket No. 3223, In re Diocese of Rochester,
(Bankr. W.D.N.Y, Case No. 19-20905, June 26, 2025); Order Granting Motion to
Schedule a Status Conference of the Presentation of Survivor Statements, Docket No.
Case 23-60507-6-pgr Doc 1102 Filed 10/27/25 Entered 10/27/25 15:59:09 Desc
Main Document Page 7 of 11

8
281, In re Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, Vermont, Bankr. D. Vt., Case No.
24-10205-HZC, April 29, 2025).
Both Chief Judge Kinsella and Judge Littlefield in this Court’s own district
permitted survivor statements. See Order Granting Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors’ Motion to Authorize Status Conferences for the Presentation of Survivor
Impact Statements, Docket No. 2540, In re The Roman Catholic Diocese of Syracuse,
New York (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. Case No. 20-20663, Feb. 24, 2025); Order Authorizing a
Status Conference for the Presentation of Survivor Impact Statements, Docket No.
2067, In re The Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, New York (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. Case
No. 23-10244, July 24, 2025).
Fifth, while recognizing Century’s concern regarding the risk that hearing the
statements could taint this Court as a future trier of fact and noting that this concern
has been shared by some judges, including Judge Grabill in the Archdiocese of New
Orleans case, this Court finds the concern overstated and outweighed by the benefits
of permitting the statements.
Judges are not robots — we come to court with personal feelings and beliefs
informed by our life experience.
It is fundamental to the role that we strive to transcend those sentiments and
apply the law as we interpret it according to the facts as we find them. See
Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of Hon. Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States before the S. Comm. on the
Judiciary, 111th Cong. 121 (2009) (response of J. Sonia Sotomayor to Sen. Jon Kyl,
Case 23-60507-6-pgr Doc 1102 Filed 10/27/25 Entered 10/27/25 15:59:09 Desc
Main Document Page 8 of 11

9
S. Comm. on the Judiciary)(explaining that judges “apply law to facts. We don’t apply
feelings to facts.”); see also Del Vecchio v. Illinois Dep’t of Corr., 31 F.3d 1363, 1372
(7th Cir. 1994)( “Judges are human; like all humans, their outlooks are shaped by
their lives’ experiences. It would be unrealistic to suppose that judges do not bring to
the bench those experiences and the attendant biases they may create. A person could
find something in the background of most judges which in many cases would lead
that person to conclude that the judge has a ‘possible temptation’ to be biased. But
not all temptations are created equal. We expect—even demand—that judges rise
above these potential biasing influences, and in most cases we presume judges do.”).
This is particularly the case for bankruptcy judges. As Judge Harner observed
in her decision permitting survivor statements:
Bankruptcy cases involve difficult issues. People lose their
homes, 	their 	businesses, 	their 	jobs, 	their 	retirement
benefits, and much more, and often the circumstances
surrounding these events are not pleasant and can be
emotional 	for 	the 	parties. 	Regardless 	of 	statements
made in the courtroom during any act or other proceeding
outside a formal hearing or trial, as stated in a prior note,
the Court is bound by, and will follow, the Code and the
applicable federal rules (including the Federal Rules of
Evidence) in any hearing or trial held in the 	case 	or 	any
related adversary proceeding.
Archbishop of Baltimore, 2025 WL 2314793, at *6, n. 22.
Moreover, this Court recognizes that the survivor statements will not, and
cannot, be considered evidence, as they will not be offered under oath or tested by
cross-examination. See Bishop of Sacramento, 667 B.R. at 580 (“In the procedural
posture of the case, any statements made are no more than allegations which
Case 23-60507-6-pgr Doc 1102 Filed 10/27/25 Entered 10/27/25 15:59:09 Desc
Main Document Page 9 of 11

10
standard Rule 12 pretrial motion practice treats as true only for purposes of analysis.
Hence, the alleged sex abuses are treated as presumed to have occurred for interim
pretrial procedural purposes. Ultimately, of course, the plaintiffs must prove their
respective cases by preponderance of evidence in trial by jury. At this stage,
credibility is not an issue.”); Archbishop of Baltimore, 2025 WL 2314793, at *6 (“This
Court frequently hears statements from parties in interest in the courtroom that are
not evidence or offered as part of an evidentiary hearing or trial. The Court can allow
parties to speak without prejudicing the record.”).
Further, any concern about potential prejudice in the event this Court is called
upon to be a trier of fact is speculative and, should it arise, can be raised by a
concerned party via a recusal request as to the matter in question.1
Lastly, and most importantly, the risk is substantially outweighed by the
significant benefits to be achieved by permitting the statements.
As noted above, Century does not seriously dispute that affording claimants
an opportunity to address this Court and the Bishop (and to hear from fellow
survivors) will provide some measure of validation, healing, and empowerment. See
Bishop of Sacramento, 667 B.R. at 578 (“Considerations of basic human dignity
require that [survivors] know that they have been heard by the Church and by the
Court....Anything that promotes reconciliation, catharsis, and solace for sex abuse
1 Indeed, 28 U.S.C. § 455 “already … imposes … an obligation on me to personally evaluate any bias I
may have in this case—actual or reasonably perceived—and disclose or recuse if I find that I must.”
Brizuela v. City of Sparks, No. 3:19-CV-00692-MMD-CSD, 2022 WL 22827625, at *4 (D. Nev. Oct. 3,
2022).
Case 23-60507-6-pgr Doc 1102 Filed 10/27/25 Entered 10/27/25 15:59:09 Desc
Main Document Page 10 of 11

11
victims in a chapter 11 case serves the interests of justice and is a worthy task for a
bankruptcy judge.”).
Further, having this Court (as opposed to another judge with no connection to
the case) conduct the conference promotes engagement with, and confidence in, the
bankruptcy process, which will, in turn, hopefully increase the prospects for a
consensual and expeditious resolution to this case. See Archbishop of Baltimore, 2025
WL 2314793, at *8 (“A status conference allowing Survivors to address the Court, the
Debtor, and other parties in interest is appropriate, an authorized tool available to
the Court, and needed in this particular case to maintain confidence in the process
and facilitate continued discussions and progress.”)(emphasis in original).
The Committee’s Motion for Entry of an Order Permitting Nontestimonial
Survivor Statements (Docket No. 1050) is GRANTED. 	A separate scheduling order
setting the dates, location, and parameters of the conference will be issued forthwith.2
###
2 In its opposition to this motion, Century requested a stay pending appeal. That request is denied
without prejudice to being renewed via separate motion on notice.
Case 23-60507-6-pgr Doc 1102 Filed 10/27/25 Entered 10/27/25 15:59:09 Desc
Main Document Page 11 of 11