There are hints of new developments in the Belfast Project case in an article published yesterday in The Heights, a student newspaper at BC.
First, BC’s spokesman says that the College is still deciding whether to appeal. This is somewhat surprising to me, given that BC did not seek a stay of the judge’s order. On the other hand, BC may just be trying to ensure that its appeal doesn’t get heard together with Moloney & McIntyre’s, since there is obviously no love lost between the two camps.
The rules provide 60 days to appeal (the usual thirty-day rule does not apply, because the United States is a party to the case). Judge Young’s first order—the order on the first subpoena, requiring production of the Dolours Price interviews—was entered on December 27, 2011, so BC has until February 27 to appeal. An appeal of this order, however, seems unlikely. Judge Young’s second order—the order requiring production of a broader range of documents responsive to the second subpoena—entered on January 20, so BC does not have to decide on an appeal until March 20.
Second, in the food fight between BC and Moloney & McIntyre about who made what promises to whom, there seems to be an interesting new nuance. Recall that there are two relevant contracts: one contract between BC and Moloney, the other between BC and the interviewees. The BC/Moloney contract expressly notes that the promise of confidentiality may be limited by US law. The BC/interviewee agreement does not. Let’s leave aside the point about whether that omission matters, or whether, on the other hand, a reasonable person would have known that the promise of confidentiality would have to yield to a subpoena. Why is the reference to US law in one agreement and not the other?
BC’s spokesman says that the BC/interviewee agreement was written by Moloney. McIntyre, on the other hand, says the BC/interviewee agreement was written by BC.
“The interviewees were given a contract drawn up by Boston College that stated that they had the ultimate power of release,” McIntyre said in an interview.
On the other hand, Dunn stated that the University made no such promises, and in fact informed Moloney and McIntyre of the risk of subpoena and the danger such a situation could pose to the archives. He admitted that the language “to the extent that American law provides” was not found exactly in the donor agreement, but stated his belief that the contract was drawn up by Moloney, not BC.
“BC warned Moloney and McIntyre explicitly of the threat of a subpoena,” Dunn said. “However, BC could not extend the warning to the interviewees because we did not interview them, and we never met them.”
So which is it? I don’t know that it makes any difference to the pending litigations, but it is clearly a point of contention for the parties themselves. I should add that I would be surprised if BC would allow a BC researcher to draft a contract that binds the University without putting it through a legal review.