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

Filing 150

Letter/request (non-motion) from Students for Fair Admissions . (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Ex A, # 2 Exhibit Ex B, # 3 Affidavit Ex C, # 4 Affidavit Ex D, # 5 Affidavit Ex E)(Consovoy, William)

EXHIBIT
 B

Ten
 Post
 Office
 Square

8th
 Floor
 South
 PMB
 #706

Boston,
 MA

 02109

617.227.0548

www.consovoymccarthy.com

 April
 15,
 2016

VIA
 EMAIL

Felicia
 H.
 Ellsworth,
 Esq.

WilmerHale

60
 State
 Street

Boston,
 MA

 02109

Re:
  SFFA
 v.
 Harvard:
 Document
 Production
 and
 Discovery
 Responses

Dear
 Felicia:

I
  write
  on
  behalf
  of
  Students
  for
  Fair
  Admissions
  (“SFFA”)
  in
  response
  to
  your
  letter

of
 April
 14,
 2016,
 regarding
 SFFA’s
 responses
 to
 Harvard’s
 Requests
 for
 Production

and
  Interrogatories.
  Your
  letter
  states
  that
  because
  “the
  parties
  have
  made
  their

positions
  known
  to
  each
  other,
  Harvard
  will
  present
  this
  issue
  to
  the
  Court
  for
  its

determination.”
 We
 do
 not
 agree
 that
 Harvard
 has
 satisfied
 its
 obligation
 to
 “confer

with
 good
 faith
 to
 narrow
 the
 areas
 of
 disagreement
 to
 the
 greatest
 possible
 extent.”

D.
  Mass.
  Local
  R.
  37.1.
  You
  have
  simply
  refused
  SFFA’s
  requests
  for
  additional

specificity,
  see
  SFFA
  Letter
  dated
  April
  1,
  2016,
  and
  refused
  to
  justify
  or
  consider

narrowing
 any
 of
 Harvard’s
 extremely
 broad
 attempts,
 which
 (among
 other
 things)

seek
 the
 identity
 of
 every
 one
 of
 SFFA’s
 members,
 detailed
 information
 about
 every

financial
  contribution
  it
  has
  received,
  and
  the
  content
  of
  virtually
  every

communication
 it
 has
 had
 with
 any
 member
 or
 prospective
 member.
 It
 appears
 that

Harvard
  has
  a
  strategic
  preference
  for
  burdening
  the
  Court
  with
  premature

discovery
 disputes
 rather
 than
 engaging
 in
 a
 bona
 fide
 meet-­‐and-­‐confer
 process.

SFFA
  has
  explained
  that
  documents
  concerning
  its
  inner
  workings
  are
  entirely

irrelevant
 to
 the
 standing
 inquiry.
 Moreover,
 the
 requests
 seek
 information
 that,
 if

produced,
 would
 violate
 recognized
 First
 Amendment
 rights
 and
 privileges
 of
 SFFA

and
 its
 members.
 We
 nonetheless
 invited
 Harvard
 to
 articulate
 the
 legal
 bases
 for
 its

requests
  and
  to
  identify
  the
  specific
  factual
  information
  it
  seeks.
  Indeed,
  SFFA

expressed
  its
  willingness
  to
  “search
  for
  and
  produce
  certain
  documents,
  provided

that
 Harvard
 and
 SFFA
 can
 reach
 agreement
 on
 a
 reasonable
 scope
 of
 that
 additional

information.”
  Harvard
  incorrectly
  alleges
  that
  this
  proposal
  “is
  fundamentally

inconsistent
  with
  the
  basic
  tenets
  of
  discovery”
  because
  “SFFA’s
  obligation
  to

produce
  responsive
  information
  continues,
  regardless
  of
  the
  fact
  that
  disputes

remain
  regarding
  other
  discovery
  requests.”
  This
  misunderstands
  SFFA’s
  position.

SFFA
  has
  no
  legal
  obligation
  to
  divulge
  information
  that
  is
  both
  irrelevant
  and

April
 15,
 2016

protected
  by
  associational
  privacy
  rights
  and
  the
  First
  Amendment.
  It
  nonetheless

has
  offered—as
  part
  of
  an
  effort
  to
  seek
  compromise
  and
  to
  avoid
  burdening
  the

Court—to
  discuss
  a
  potential
  resolution
  of
  discovery
  disputes
  regarding
  SFFA’s

standing.
 In
 that
 vein,
 we
 expressed
 our
 willingness
 to
 “make
 ourselves
 available
 for

a
  meet
  and
  confer
  if
  necessary
  to
  advance
  these
  discussions.”
  Instead
  of
  engaging
  in

a
  good-­‐faith
  discussion,
  Harvard
  mischaracterizes
  SFFA’s
  proposal
  for
  a
  global

resolution
 and
 has
 indicated
 its
 intention
 to
 seek
 the
 intervention
 of
 the
 Court.

We
 invite
 Harvard
 to
 reconsider
 SFFA’s
 proposal
 and
 to
 meet
 and
 confer
 regarding

the
 legal
 and
 factual
 basis
 for
 Harvard’s
 requests
 regarding
 SFFA’s
 standing.

Sincerely,

/s/
 Patrick
 Strawbridge

cc:

William
 S.
 Consovoy,
 Esq.

Michael
 H.
 Park,
 Esq.

Michael
 Connolly,
 Esq.

Paul
 Sanford,
 Esq.