U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman. Photo: Joel Salcido

A federal judge has rebuked the attorney representing 15 Jane Doe plaintiffs suing Baylor University over its alleged mishandling of their sexual assault claims.

U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman chastised “plaintiffs' counsel” for alleging, in the midst of a discovery dispute, that opposing counsel from Thompson & Horton were asking abusive questions in depositions. The plaintiffs' counsel who raised the issue in a motion response are Jim Dunnam of Dunnam & Dunnam in Waco and Chad Dunn of Brazil & Dunn in Houston.

“The court will not permit the parties to use court filings to deliver material to the news media that is irrelevant to the immediate issue before the court,” Pitman wrote in the April 16 order in Doe v. Baylor University, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

The plaintiffs raised the claims of “abusive” questioning in an April 9 motion responding to Baylor's motion to compel production of Facebook messages, texts and other communications by the plaintiffs. The response argued the abusive deposition questions “attempt to brand a scarlet letter on someone unfortunate enough to be raped” by asking things about their clothes, how deeply they were penetrated during their assaults and miniscule details, such as the lighting in the room where they were raped.

Related story: Thompson & Horton Lawyers Accused of Asking 'Abusive' Questions to Plaintiffs in Baylor University Sex Assault Suit

The outside counsel for Baylor handling the depositions include Thompson & Horton partners Holly McIntush of Austin and Lisa Brown of Houston and associate Ryan Newman of Houston. McIntush and Brown each didn't return a call seeking comment, and Newman declined to comment.

In a court filing responding to the deposition allegation, Baylor wrote that it conducted depositions with respect and didn't want the experience to be unpleasant for the plaintiffs, but added that Baylor has a right and responsibility to learn about the circumstances of the plaintiffs' allegations. The filing added that the plaintiffs had not fully produced the items Baylor requested in discovery.

On the underlying issue about the discovery materials, the judge found the plaintiffs must provide much of the information. On the deposition allegation, Pitman noted he previously warned the parties not to speculate on opposing counsel's motivations and instead to keep briefs factual and limited to requested relief.

The order said discovery in a sexual assault case is highly sensitive, and it's critical to conduct depositions with decency. If not, the court would consider requests for relief. Yet here, the plaintiffs didn't ask for specific relief about the depositions, noted the order.

“If either party files briefing in the future that is not directly responsive to the motion pending, or otherwise relevant to the requested relief, the court will take appropriate measures,” the order warned.

Dunnam said he did not send his filing to the news media to write an article.

“You called me,” he said. “The press follows the ECF filings in this case unlike anything I've ever seen.”

He declined to say whether the plaintiffs would request specific relief from the court over the depositions issue.

“We don't want to try this case in the newspaper,” Dunnam said. “We want it to go to a jury,”

Dunn didn't immediately return a call seeking comment.

Read the order here.