Pepper Hamilton Might Face Sanctions for Discovery Fiasco in Baylor Sex Assault Case
“This violation has caused three months of delay in a case that has already been pending for three years and forced the parties to revisit issues that should have been resolved two years ago," the court wrote.
June 10, 2019 at 05:44 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Texas Lawyer
Big Law firm Pepper Hamilton might face sanctions at a hearing next week for violating a court order by withholding records that U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman had ordered the firm to disclose to plaintiffs suing Baylor University in Waco.
The records trace back to 2015 when Pepper Hamilton represented Baylor in an investigation about how the school inadequately responded to sexual assault allegations by students.
Plaintiffs in Doe v. Baylor University requested the firm's records in discovery in their Title IX lawsuit that alleges the university ignored their sexual assault allegations as students and created an environment on campus that allowed future sexual attacks to continue. Their lawsuit came after Pepper Hamilton's 2016 report found administrators responded inadequately to female students' allegations that Baylor football players sexually assaulted them.
Most recently in the discovery fiasco, Pitman, who presides in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in Waco, ordered Pepper Hamilton to produce everything responsive to discover requests that Baylor does not have, or anything Baylor has not yet disclosed. The plaintiffs asked for those records back in March 2017.
However, by the April 11 deadline, Pepper Hamilton certified that the firm didn't have any materials that Baylor doesn't also possess, said the court's June 7 order. The firm asked the court to reconsider or clarify the order for documents that Baylor had not yet disclosed, and raised three brand-new “untimely objections” to complying with discovery. The law firm now claims it shouldn't have to release records that Baylor logged as privilege, anything dated after June 15, 2016, and records related to three “separate” legal matters that the firm worked on for Baylor.
Pitman wrote that by not raising these objections sooner, Pepper Hamilton waived the opportunity to object. It also seems that the firm is trying to create delay.
Pitman wrote that he's inclined to sanction Pepper Hamilton for multiple discovery abuses over two years, including violating the court order.
“This violation has caused three months of delay in a case that has already been pending for three years and forced the parties to revisit issues that should have been resolved two years ago when the subpoena was first issued. This conduct increases costs for all parties and wastes public resources that are meant for adjudicating good faith disputes,” Pitman wrote.
But the court will give the firm a chance at a June 17 hearing to show good cause that it shouldn't face sanctions.
Pitman wrote that he has continuing concerns about Baylor's compliance with discovery orders.
Baylor had certified in September 2018 that it had completed production, but then in April, Pepper Hamilton told the court that Baylor had discovered a few hundred more documents. The plaintiffs informed the court that since then, the university has given up more than 3,500 new documents.
“Neither Baylor nor Pepper Hamilton have adequately explained when, how or why these documents were suddenly discovered,” the court wrote. “The record suggests that Baylor may have withheld court-ordered production.”
The court ordered Baylor at the hearing to address the court's concerns that it should have disclosed the other matters that Pepper Hamilton worked on back in 2017, and that it keeps making “eleventh-hour” disclosures, making the case longer, more burdensome and expensive.
The court noted that it typically defers to a party's privilege log, but that Baylor has had “repeated late discovery of material” and the court previously rejected some of Baylor's claimed privileges. The court ordered the parties to a June 17 hearing to sort out the privilege issue, and also decided to “adopt a claw back procedure” for certain materials. Pepper Hamilton must give up everything that the court ordered it to disclose following the hearing.
“All the firm would be required to do is produce materials directly to plaintiffs, without any review or log. Baylor would bear the burden of reviewing the materials afterwards and completing a privilege log,” the order said. “Plaintiffs will scan and Bates label the materials and produce them to Baylor within five days. Baylor will have two weeks to notify plaintiffs which documents Baylor contends are privileged.”
Dunnam & Dunnam partner Jim Dunnam of Waco, who represents the plaintiffs, declined to comment.
Thompson & Horton partner Lisa Ann Brown of Houston, who represents Baylor, and Cobb Martinez Woodward partner William Cobb Jr., who represents Pepper Hamilton, each didn't return a call seeking comment before deadline. Baylor spokesman Jason Cook declined to comment.
Read the 37-page order.
Related stories:
Judge Orders Pepper Hamilton to Produce Baylor University Sex Assault Records
Bench Slap for Lawyers Criticizing Opposing Counsel in Baylor University Sex Assault Case
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLibrarian's Termination Violated First Amendment Protections, Lawsuit Claims
3 minute readDivided State Supreme Court Clears the Way for Child Sexual Abuse Cases Against Church, Schools
Longtime Purdue GC Accused of Drunken Driving Hires Big-Name Defense Attorney
3 minute readLSU General Counsel Quits Amid Fracas Over First Amendment Rights of Law Professor
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Data Breaches in UK Legal Sector Surge, According to ICO Data
- 2PayPal Faces New Round of Claims; This Time Alleging Its 'Honey' Browser Extension Cheated Consumers
- 3Fired NLRB Member Seeks Reinstatement, Challenges President's Removal Power
- 4NY Inspector General Announces Attorneys Hired to Lead Upstate Region and Gaming
- 5Carol-Lisa Phillips to Rise to Broward Chief Judge as Jack Tuter Weighs Next Move
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250