Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College et al

Filing 110

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ORDER entered The Proposed Defendant-Intervenors Motion to Stay [ECF No. 90] is ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and Harvards Motion to Stay [ECF No. 58] is also ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as set forth in the accompanying Order. And in light of the Court's ruling, Harvards Emergency Motion for a Protective Order and a Temporary Stay of Depositions [ECF No. 104] is DENIED AS MOOT. (Montes, Mariliz)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS,
INC.
Plaintiff,
v.
PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF
HARVARD COLLEGE (HARVARD
CORPORATION)
Defendant.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

14-cv-14176-ADB

ORDER
BURROUGHS, D.J.
The Proposed Defendant-Intervenors’ Motion to Stay [ECF No. 90] is ALLOWED IN
PART and DENIED IN PART. A partial stay will remain in effect until the Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit resolves whether the Proposed Defendant-Intervenors have a right to intervene
as parties in this litigation. Although the Court does not believe that the Proposed DefendantIntervenors’ appeal has divested this Court of jurisdiction, the Court finds that granting a partial
stay would serve the interests of judicial economy and guard against potential prejudice. The
terms of the partial stay are as follows:
1. Notwithstanding the partial stay, Harvard shall produce, consistent with its
representations at the July 21, 2015 status conference before the Court, documents
concerning Harvard’s undergraduate admissions policies and procedures, including
Harvard’s training manuals and any reader instructions with respect to its
undergraduate admissions policies and procedures. Harvard shall also produce
general information regarding its alumni interviewer program. In addition, Harvard
1

shall produce electronic admissions data (database information) from its admissions
database for the two most recent complete admissions cycles, including identification
of the database fields, and including database information for transfer applicants. 1
2. Discovery is otherwise stayed until the First Circuit resolves the DefendantIntervenors’ pending appeal. No depositions shall go forward, and Harvard shall not
be required to produce any actual application files at this time. 2
Harvard’s Motion to Stay [ECF No. 58] is also ALLOWED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART. After the First Circuit resolves the Proposed Defendant-Intervenors’ pending appeal, this
Court will enter a further partial stay of proceedings that will remain in effect until the United
States Supreme Court resolves Fisher v. University of Texas, No. 14-981, cert. granted, 135
S.Ct. 2888 (U.S. June 29, 2015), or until further order of this Court. Both parties are hereby
ordered to submit, jointly or separately, no later than October 23, 2015, written proposals
concerning what additional discovery each believes should go forward during the Fisher stay. As
a general guideline, the Court is inclined to allow discovery to proceed, but not require Harvard
to produce individual student or applicant files. After reviewing the parties’ proposals, the Court
will issue a separate order outlining the terms of the Fisher stay.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 9, 2015

/s/ Allison D. Burroughs
ALLISON D. BURROUGHS
DISTRICT JUDGE

1

With regard to the production of admissions data, the parties are urged to resolve any disputes
pertaining to potential privacy issues. If they are unable to do so, the parties may notify the Court
and request a status conference.
2

In light of this ruling, Harvard’s Emergency Motion for a Protective Order and a Temporary
Stay of Depositions [ECF No. 104] is DENIED AS MOOT.
2