Pepper Hamilton Ordered to Produce Baylor University Sex Assault Records
Dunnam & Dunnam partner Jim Dunnam of Waco, Texas, who represents the plaintiffs, said the Pepper Hamilton records would shine light on the problems at Baylor, and get to the bottom of who acted inappropriately.
March 28, 2019 at 06:45 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Texas Lawyer
A Texas federal judge has ordered Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton to give up a trove of records related to its investigation for Baylor University about how the school inadequately responded to sexual assault allegations by students.
Plaintiffs in a federal Title IX lawsuit against Baylor requested the firm's records in discovery in their 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 that found administrators responded inadequately to female students' allegations that Baylor football players sexually assaulted them. Administrators even discouraged the victims from pursuing the complaints.
Dunnam & Dunnam partner Jim Dunnam of Waco, Texas, who represents the plaintiffs, said the Pepper Hamilton records would shine light on the problems at Baylor and get to the bottom of who acted inappropriately.
“Every time we can get to the real facts of the who, what, when and where in regard to the failures at Baylor, we get closer to not only identifying the problem but solving the problem and providing accountability,” he said.
Baylor spokeswoman Lori Fogleman wrote in an email that Baylor is committed to following appropriate Title IX guidelines, and it provides sexual assault prevention training for students, works to prevent assaults, and responds to alleged incidents when they come up.
“Nothing is more important at Baylor University than providing a safe and caring community for our students,” Fogleman said. “Baylor is also committed to providing a caring environment for survivors while working to determine the facts in each case to ensure a fair and equitable process for all involved parties.”
Pepper Hamilton spokesman Daniel Pulka didn't respond to a request for comment.
U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman of the Western District of Texas ruled Thursday in Doe v. Baylor that Pepper Hamilton must release the records that the plaintiffs requested by April 11.
Pitman's order noted that the plaintiffs served a subpoena on Pepper Hamilton back in March 2017, and the firm objected a month later, noting that attorneys who used to represent Baylor had left the firm. The plaintiffs filed a motion to compel, but Pepper Hamilton never responded. The court granted the motion to compel in early March, telling the firm to file any objections by March 15. Pepper Hamilton did that, questioning the court's jurisdiction and saying producing the records would create an undue burden.
Pitman overruled the objections, explaining the firm waived the arguments when it failed to respond to the plaintiffs' motion to compel. However, Baylor has produced some records already, so there's no need for Pepper Hamilton to duplicate those disclosures. Yet the firm must hand over anything that Baylor does not have, or anything Baylor has yet to disclose, he ruled.
The plaintiffs' March 2017 subpoena asked Pepper Hamilton to produce records in its work on the Baylor investigation from 2015 to the present. That would include documents from prosecutors, law enforcement and the university itself. The plaintiffs want tapes and recordings of interviews, emails and mobile device data, and communications by university employees. They want materials the firm used to create the 2016 report for the board of regents and any documents they gave to regents. The records must back up conclusions Pepper Hamilton made in its 2016 report about Baylor retaliating against sexual assault complainants, discouraging complainants from reporting assaults, using administrative processes that harmed complainants, creating a hostile environment, and failing to take action for campus safety and protecting future victims.
Dunnam said never in his career has he seen so many attempts to obstruct discovery in a case. But he said it doesn't matter how long it takes.
“There should be no question in anyone's mind my client is determined to get to the truth and see justice and transparency with the failures at Baylor,” Dunnam said.
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 AllDisjunctive 'Severe or Pervasive' Standard Applies to Discrimination Claims Against University, Judge Rules
5 minute readFrom 'Confusing Labyrinth' to Speeding 'Roller Coaster': Uncertainty Reigns in Title IX as Litigators Await Second Trump Admin
6 minute read'What Is Certain Is Uncertainty': Patchwork Title IX Rules Face Expected Changes in Second Trump Administration
5 minute readTrending Stories
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