Biglaw Firm Faces Potential Sanctions For Stonewalling Sexual Assault Plaintiffs
The judge is not happy.
Pepper Hamilton is potentially in some hot water for failing to produce documents pursuant to a court order. The discovery kerfuffle comes as a result of Doe v. Baylor University, a Title IX lawsuit in which students allege the University did not do enough about their allegations of sexual assault, and created an environment which allowed sexual attacks to flourish.
Baylor had engaged Pepper Hamilton in 2015 to review the school’s handling of sexual assault claims. And the Biglaw firm’s report… didn’t leave the school in a good light and left a string of fired people in its wake. In the civil suit, Pepper Hamilton was ordered by U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman to produce all documents responsive to discovery requests that Baylor does not have, or anything Baylor has not yet produced. But, as reported by Law.com, come time for the discovery deadline all of the documents were not produced:
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.
Judge Pitman was not happy that Pepper Hamilton waited so long to make these objections, and he pointed to multiple discovery issues over the last two years of the litigation when he said sanctions are very much on the table:
“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.
The firm will have the opportunity to argue they shouldn’t face sanctions at a June 17th hearing.
You can read the judge’s order below.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).
