Collins v. University of Notre Dame Du Lac
Filing
98
OPINION AND ORDER overruling 91 Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge Decision by a District Judge. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 11/04/13. (ksp)
United States District Court
Northern District of Indiana
OLIVER COLLINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME
DU LAC,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-281 JVB
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Oliver Collins’s objections to Magistrate
Judge Christopher Nuechterlein’s order denying his motion for leave to file an amended
complaint and his motion to compel discovery (DE 91).
A.
Background
Oliver Collins sued Defendant University of Notre Dame for breach of contract for
terminating his employment as a tenured professor. The parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment. The Court decided two issues in its opinion and order on the summary judgment
motions: It ruled in favor of Notre Dame on Collins’s contention that Notre Dame did not give
him proper notice of the charges against him but ruled for Collins that Notre Dame breached the
employment contract because the Hearing Committee convened to decide whether there was
serious cause for his dismissal was improperly constituted. Accordingly, the Court determined
that Collins was wrongfully terminated and the case should proceed to trial on the issue of
damages. (See the Court’s order of March 25, 2013, DE 67.) The Court did not deem it
appropriate to review the merits of Notre Dame’s decision to dismiss Collins because the
composition of the Hearing Committee whose findings were the cornerstone of the decision
violated Notre Dame’s Academic Articles, thereby tainting the decision.1 Discovery was
reopened on the issue of damages.
On July 12, 2013, Collins moved the Court for leave to amend his complaint to request
damages pursuant to Indiana Code § 22-2-5-2, which provides for liquidated damages to an
employee whose employer has failed to pay wages as required by Indiana Code § 22-2-5-1. By
an order dated September 5, 2013, Judge Nuechterlein denied the request as futile, holding that
the statute does not apply to him.
In the same order, Judge Nuechterlein denied Collins’s motion to compel discovery.
Collins’s interrogatories, request for production, and request for admissions are aimed at finding
evidence that Notre Dame approved and endorsed the acts to which Plaintiff pleaded guilty in a
criminal prosecution and that the same conduct is common to most faculty receiving grants at
Notre Dame. He argues that he needs the evidence to refute Notre Dame’s claims that it proved
serious cause for his termination so that he suffered no damages as a result of the error in the
composition of the Hearing Committee and that his conviction cuts off his damages. He also
claims he needs the evidence to prove that the second termination process, which has not yet
concluded, will be invalid. Judge Nuechterlein found that the discovery Collins seeks is not
relevant to the issue of damages flowing from Notre Dame’s failure to conduct the hearing that is
1
Throughout its brief on Plaintiff’s objections, Notre Dame represents that the Court’s summary judgment
order decided that Notre Dame had serious cause to terminate him. This is simply not true. In fact, at a recorded
status conference held on May 30, 2012, in response to Notre Dame attorney Lawrence DiNardo’s observation that
the opinion of May 21, 2012, did not explicitly state whether there was cause to dismiss Collins, the Court stated that
the issue was not decided on summary judgment and that it was not the Court’s intention to rule on that issue.
2
a required step in the termination process before a properly constituted panel.
B.
Standard of Review
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), when a party files timely objections to a
magistrate judge’s order on nondispositive matters, the district judge in the case must consider
the objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is
contrary to law.
C.
Amending the Complaint Would Be Futile
Indiana Code § 22-2-5-1 requires employers to pay their employees at least semimonthly
or biweekly. Section 22-2-5-2 provides for liquidated damages of up to double the amount of
wages due if an employer does not pay wages as required by § 22-2-5-1. Collins’s argument that
these statutes apply to him is premised on his contention that the Court’s order on summary
judgment voided his termination and reinstated him as a Notre Dame employee. It did not.
The Court’s summary judgment order stated only that Notre Dame breached its contract
with Collins because the composition of the Hearing Committee was contrary to the Academic
Articles. The Court’s order of March 25, 2013, stated that Collins was wrongfully terminated.
The Court has never ordered that Collins be reinstated. Indiana case law holds that the statute
applies only to wages that have already been earned and are due and owing at the time of
discharge. New Frontiers Inc. v. Goss, 580 N.E.2d 310, 312 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991). Accordingly,
the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Nuechterlein that Collins’s motion to amend his
complaint to request damages under Indiana Code § 22-2-5-1 et seq. would be futile.
3
D.
Judge Nuechterlein Properly Denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Rule 26(b) defines the scope of permitted discovery and allows discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. The Court agrees with
Judge Nuechterlein that the discovery Collins seeks is not relevant to his damages for the
contract breach the Court found in its ruling on his motion for summary judgment. Whether
serious cause for his dismissal existed at some point in the past has no bearing on Collins’s
damages. What might be decided following a new dismissal process is not currently before the
Court. Accordingly, discovery aimed at disproving the existence of serious cause for Collins’s
dismissal is not relevant to the claim or defense of any party.
E.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s objections to Magistrate Judge Nuechterlein’s order
of September 5, 2013 (DE 91) are OVERRULED.
SO ORDERED on November 4, 2013.
s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
United States District Judge
Hammond Division
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?