Pepper Hamilton Must Pay Plaintiffs Fees, Expenses as Sanction for Violating Discovery Order in Baylor Case
“The evidence of Pepper Hamilton's conduct in violation of the court's orders is so 'clear, direct, weighty and convincing' that the court reaches this conclusion with clear conviction and without hestitancy,” U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman of Waco wrote.
June 24, 2019 at 12:59 PM
4 minute read
In a discovery imbroglio in a Baylor University sexual assault case, a Texas federal court sanctioned Philadelphia-based big law firm Pepper Hamilton, which must pay the attorney fees and expenses the plaintiffs spent in the records dispute.
It's not yet clear how much the sanction will be as the plaintiffs have until Aug. 20 to submit evidence of their fees and expenses. Yet on the other side, Baylor has spent $4.5 million in the discovery process and produced more than 3 million pages of records, said Baylor spokesman Jason Cook, who declined comment on the court's order.
“It costs a lot of money to hide materials,” said Brazil & Dunn partner Chad Dunn of Austin, who represents the plaintiffs.
He said the plaintiffs had to file hundreds of pages of motions in the discovery fight.
“We're at a stage in the case where it became necessary for the judge to closely supervise discovery. We're pleased with the court's order that it is going to see to it the rules are followed and all the documents and materials relevant to this case are turned over,” Dunn said.
In a statement, Pepper Hamilton said it would comply with the court's order, which gives the firm clarification about its discovery obligations.
“As a nonparty to this litigation, we believe we have fulfilled our legal and ethical obligations in transferring all files related to Baylor matters to Cozen O'Connor when Gina Maisto Smith and Leslie Gomez, the senior investigators on the Baylor matter in question, changed firms more than two years ago, as well as in our subsequent responses to requests to produce any files in Pepper's possession,” the firm's statement said.
The court ordered Pepper Hamilton to comply with a discovery request that 15 Jane Doe plaintiffs sent for records related to the firm's investigation, leading to a 2016 report into how Baylor handled its football team sexual assault scandal. The plaintiffs' Title IX lawsuit alleges the university ignored their sexual assault allegations as students and created an environment on campus that allowed future sexual attacks to continue.
Pitman issued a scathing order June 7 that detailed the discovery scuffle and faulted both Pepper Hamilton and Baylor. He ordered the parties to a June 17 hearing to hash out the dilemma. The court's latest order is the result of that hearing.
“The evidence of Pepper Hamilton's conduct in violation of the court's orders is so 'clear, direct, weighty and convincing' that the court reaches this conclusion with clear conviction and without hestitancy,” wrote U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman of Waco in a June 21 order in Doe v. Baylor University.
The court found clear and convincing evidence that Pepper Hamilton knew it violated a court order, first by failing to file objections to the discovery request on time, and then by missing an April 11 deadline to give up the records. The excuses the firm offered were inadequate because its objections have existed for two years.
The court created a mechanism for Pepper Hamilton and Baylor to give the plaintiffs the information. All the parties must agree on a third-party discovery vendor, with Baylor and Pepper Hamilton footing the bill, to process the materials for the plaintiffs.
Pepper Hamilton may withhold some information for which Baylor already submitted a privilege log, said the order. Regarding records of Pepper Hamilton's representation of Baylor in several other matters, Baylor will be allowed to assert attorney-client and work product privilege, but must produce the rest.
“The court is sensitive to plaintiffs' argument questioning Baylor's designation of privileged materials and will revisit this order if it appears that Baylor is abusing its opportunity to designate privileged material,” warned the court.
Cobb Martinez Woodward member William D. Cobb Jr. of Dallas, who represents Pepper Hamilton, didn't immediately respond to a call or email seeking comment.
Read the court's order:
Related stories:
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
© 2024 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 AllFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readDLA Piper Sued by 2 Houston Companies, Alleging a 'Fake Lawyer' Represented Them in Argentina
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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