Beghe COULD fight this. I was worred about this precendent:
In Mockaitis, the Ninth Circuit also found that the priest and archbishop had a well-established reasonable expectation of privacy, based on Oregon's clergyman-communicant privilege and the "history of the nation" revealing "uniform respect for the character of sacramental confession."54
BUT CoS is already violating the "reasonable expectation of privacy" because a supervisor is monitoring the auditing session by videocamera, and because the files are accessible to people besides the auditor. Beghe could get witnesses to swear to these breaches of privacy.
The greatest case EVER would be if Beghe's auditor quit, and he plus Beghe TOGETHER sued to get Beghe's files. Then CoS doesn't have a case - hanging onto the files just proves they are trying to control and intimidate both auditor and auditee.
There are two paths here - lawsuit or legislation.
The lawsuit may be the quickest, but for the person filing it, it may be expensive and full of harassment.
Legislation would be stickier, and might take longer; the main problem is that you can't pass a law designed exactly against only one person or group, but, hey, there's Freezone, and they're writing notes on their auditing sessions! Calif. and Florida could each pass a law that religious confessions cannot be recorded in writing, audio, or videotape, and can't be observed by a third person by any means, to "better protect the privacy of the confessional." Cos could still tape auditing sessions, but then they wouldn't be protected under priest-penitent confidentiality. Or, CoS could stop taping and writing up auditing sessions, and BE protected under priest-penitent confidentiality. It's politically sticky to write such a law, but it's obvious that CoS cannot maintain pure confidentiality when multiple auditors or staff have access to the files, and the whole process is watched by videocamera. CoS may squawk about quality control and training but that's their problem.