Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College et al
Filing
173
Transcript of Status Conference held on July 20, 2016, before Judge Allison D. Burroughs. The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: Carol Scott at carollynnscott@cs.com Redaction Request due 8/25/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/5/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/2/2016. (Scalfani, Deborah)
1
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
STUDENTS FOR FAIR
*
ADMISSIONS, INC.,
*
Plaintiff,
*
*
vs.
*
*
PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF
*
HARVARD COLLEGE, et al,
*
Defendants.
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CIVIL ACTION
No. 14-14176-ADB
BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALLISON D. BURROUGHS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
STATUS CONFERENCE
A P P E A R A N C E S
12
13
14
CONSOVOY McCARTHY PARK PLLC
Ten Post Office Square, 8th Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
for the plaintiff
By: Patrick Strawbridge, Esq.
15
16
17
18
CONSOVOY McCARTHY PARK PLLC
3 Columbus Circle, 15th Floor
New York, New York 10024
for the plaintiff
By: Michael H. Park, Esq.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Courtroom No. 17
John J. Moakley Courthouse
1 Courthouse Way
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
July 20, 2016
3:15 p.m.
2
1
APPEARANCES CONTINUED
2
3
4
5
CONSOVOY McCARTHY PARK PLLC
3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700
Arlington, Virginia 22201
for the plaintiff
By: William S. Consovoy, Esq.
6
7
8
BURNS & LEVINSON LLP
One Citizens Plaza, Suite 1100
Providence, Rhode Island 02903
for the plaintiff
By: Paul M. Sanford, Esq.
9
10
11
12
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE and DORR LLP (Bos)
60 State Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
for the defendants
By: Felicia H. Ellsworth, Esq.
William F. Lee, Esq.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE and DORR LLP
1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
for the defendant
By: Seth P. Waxman, Esq.
LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW
294 Washington Street, Suite 443
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
for the intervenor defendant
By: Matthew M. Cregor, Esq.
20
21
22
23
24
25
CAROL LYNN SCOTT, CSR, RMR
Official Court Reporter
One Courthouse Way, Suite 7204
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
(617) 330-1377
3
1
P R O C E E D I N G S
2
THE CLERK:
This is civil action 14-14176,
3
Students for Fair Admissions versus President and Fellows of
4
Harvard College, et al.
5
for the record.
6
Will counsel identify themselves
MR. CONSOVOY:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
7
Will Consovoy for Students for Fair Admissions along with
8
Patrick Strawbridge, Paul Sanford and Michael Park.
9
MS. ELLSWORTH:
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
10
Felicia Ellsworth for Harvard, with Seth Waxman and Bill Lee
11
who has newly appeared and two individuals from General
12
Counsel (indicating).
13
THE COURT:
14
MR. LEE:
15
MR. CREGOR:
16
Mr. Lee, welcome aboard.
Thank you, Your Honor.
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
Matt
Cregor on behalf of the student intervenor.
17
THE COURT:
All right.
You guys are going to
18
have to help me out here because this jury verdict threw off
19
my whole afternoon so I have read all your letters but I
20
read them when they came in so that three and four are very
21
fresh in my mind.
22
I have read them so you all are going to have to help me out
23
here.
24
25
One and two are less fresh in my mind but
There is an agreed upon discovery schedule;
correct?
4
1
MR. CONSOVOY:
2
THE COURT:
3
MR. CONSOVOY:
4
THE COURT:
5
9.
8
11 months?
Yes.
Harvard thinks they could do it in
They're willing to give you 11.
6
7
Correct.
MR. CONSOVOY:
We're happy with the 11, Your
Honor.
THE COURT:
Okay.
I am, since I didn't have
9
time, I would normally parse through this and ratchet you
10
right back to where I think you should be but because I've
11
been sort of just a little bit flat out I'm going to give
12
you the 11 that you agreed to.
13
schedule the last couple months, so the schedule is fine.
14
You can benefit from my
And then, I can't -- I know your motion for
15
reconsideration is still pending but I can't get to that
16
today, I'm just not prepared to do it, but I will get to
17
that in the next couple of weeks.
18
19
And you are looking for much more expansive
discovery than Harvard is willing to agree to; correct?
20
MR. CONSOVOY:
21
THE COURT:
Correct, Your Honor.
Okay.
You want, you're willing to
22
agree to sort of the higher ups and you want more of the
23
individual admissions officers with the third-party people;
24
do I have that generally right?
25
MR. STRAWBRIDGE:
Yes.
To the extent that
5
1
we're talking about custodians, we think it's certainly
2
important to have some of the high-level admissions officers
3
included.
4
the Admissions Office who we have reason to believe are
5
going to have relevant information.
6
parties are pretty far apart on the number of custodians.
7
We've attempted to pare our list once.
8
response from the other side.
9
there is a place to meet in the middle here but
We've identified some selective people outside
You know, obviously the
We've gotten no
You know, it may well be that
10
unfortunately we have been unable to get there without some
11
help from the Court.
12
THE COURT:
So you want something like four
13
and you were offering something like ten; do I have that
14
right?
15
MS. ELLSWORTH:
Your Honor, we've offered 11.
16
There are three individuals not in the Admissions Office:
17
The President, the Dean of the College, and the Dean of the
18
Faculty of Arts and Science and then the remaining eight are
19
admissions officers.
20
and the director as well as several what I would call more
21
like blind (ph.) admissions officers but certainly not every
22
member of the 40 plus member staff.
23
any documents from any of them yet so I'm not sure how we
24
then know it's insufficient, or excuse me, that SFFA says
25
they know is insufficient but that's what our offer has
And it includes the Dean of Admissions
And we haven't produced
6
1
been.
2
3
MR. STRAWBRIDGE:
So a couple, just a couple
quick rejoinders from that.
4
We know for a fact that the first read on every
5
application that is done is done by a junior admission
6
officer.
7
what are more fairly characterized as senior admissions
8
officers.
9
their colleagues than they are with their supervisors.
All the Admissions Office, they've offered I think
Certainly people are much more forthcoming with
And
10
at the end of the day these are the people who do the first
11
read on the applications.
12
They have an integral role in it.
I'll just note that, you know, among the list of
13
people we want from outside the Admissions Office is the
14
Chief Diversity Officer as well as the Provost for Diversity
15
and Inclusion.
16
case we wouldn't get them in as custodians.
17
It's kind of hard to imagine in this kind of
And then the other data point that we offered up
18
which I think is reasonable is given UNC, which actually has
19
a smaller admissions office, there are 70 people in their
20
Admissions Office, there is fewer than that at UNC, we made
21
an opening offer of 24 custodians in the parallel litigation
22
which hasn't progressed beyond that point, but I think that
23
kind of shows a more realistic assessment of what would be
24
typical for a case like this.
25
MS. ELLSWORTH:
There are 40 admissions
7
1
officers.
2
who don't perform reading functions but the number is 40
3
give or take one or two, not 70.
4
There may well be staff members and other people
We don't think what UNC has or has not offered has
5
any bearing on what should happen in this litigation.
6
also, I'm not sure that it's entirely true that none of the
7
folks who we offered do first reads at all.
8
prior points in their career they have.
9
when you're talking about ESI searching, what we're talking
10
about is information that might bear on the workings of the
11
office as opposed to individual applicant decisions or
12
applicant information that's not going to be coming up in
13
searching email or other documents.
14
in the database information that's already been produced so
15
I just don't see the need for it.
16
And I
Certainly at
I think, you know,
That's files alone or
On the diversity officers point that
17
Mr. Strawbridge raised, again, the Dean of the college, Dean
18
Khurana, has oversight overall of that so what we're, we're
19
offering fairly senior level people but the right and the
20
important people who could speak to Harvard's approach to
21
diversity, the interest in diversity and from an ESI
22
perspective we're going to have the final versions in the
23
relevant we think communications on those topics.
24
25
THE COURT:
All right.
Well, I'm inclined to
give them some of the senior admissions people.
I guess I
8
1
don't fully understand how the process works so I'm not sure
2
how the Chief Diversity Officer and the Provost would have
3
any -- do they have any role in the application process?
4
MR. STRAWBRIDGE:
I mean, I don't think that
5
we have enough information to say what role they have but
6
they certainly have a role in fostering diversity-inclusive
7
policies on the campus which is really what the admissions
8
process is all about achieving so I think certainly Your
9
Honor is well aware of the fact we have a mismatched claim,
10
that we have some other post admissions relevant data and
11
relevant information in this case.
12
asking for everybody who works under that person but we
13
think that at least those two examples are prime people in
14
the case about diversity and inclusion and Harvard's alleged
15
interest thereof.
16
THE COURT:
And, you know, we're not
I know what you meant, you say
17
Diversity Officer and then the Chief Diversity Officer and
18
that it's easy to sort of throw them in there but, I mean,
19
we are looking at the admissions process, not what happens
20
after the admissions process, at least as of this stage of
21
the game.
22
MR. STRAWBRIDGE:
Well, I guess I don't think
23
that those two things are necessarily seamless.
We don't, I
24
mean, we just, we don't have enough discovery yet to know
25
what extent.
It's hard for me to imagine that the Diversity
9
1
Officer doesn't have any interest in both how applicants get
2
admitted and what the student body looks like and what sort
3
of arrangements are made once they're there.
4
point is --
5
THE COURT:
And the
The arrangements that are made
6
once they're there I'm not concerned about but do the Chief
7
Diversity Officer and the Provost have any role in
8
admissions?
9
10
11
MS. ELLSWORTH:
No, Your Honor, no role in
admissions.
To the extent Your Honor is inclined to, if you
12
think the more junior admissions officers are relevant, I
13
guess what we would suggest is we think that 11 or
14
thereabouts is a good number for this case given the federal
15
rules on deposition limits, given the deposition limits that
16
are, at least provisionally have been put in place by the
17
Court for this case.
18
So if more junior officers are needed, I guess what
19
I would suggest is Your Honor can set a number from which
20
SFFA can choose who, within reason who these admission
21
officers should be rather than adding to the ones we've
22
already offered.
23
THE COURT:
24
your letters.
25
this size and magnitude.
I mean, I can go back and look at
Honestly 11 seems skimpy to me in a case of
On the other hand, 40 seems
10
1
excessive to me in any case regardless of its size or
2
magnitude so I guess I have two choices.
3
parse your letters more carefully than I have which I'm
4
happy to do or I can send you two back to the drawing board
5
or you eight back to the drawing board, however many you
6
are, and come up with another list.
7
I can go back and
I don't want to just pick a number arbitrarily so I
8
don't want to say that you want 10, you want 40, I would
9
rather parse through it a little bit more but I think that
10
the Admissions Office, they should get somebody sort of in
11
each strata so they can sort of figure out what's going on
12
at each level where the selections are being made that are
13
relevant to them.
14
So if you take the higher level people that I'm
15
sure they want, that 11 number doesn't leave very many
16
people actually in the Admissions Office and down in the
17
weeds in the process.
18
MS. ELLSWORTH:
We can certainly take that
19
guidance in terms of people in each strata and also the
20
guidance that even 11 seems not quite enough.
21
with that but I understand your position.
22
THE COURT:
We disagree
I mean, if I do go back and parse
23
through these and you want me to make these decisions, I'm
24
disinclined to order the Chief Diversity Officer, I'm
25
disinclined to order the Provost and I'm disinclined to
11
1
include alumni interviewers, sort of the third-parties that,
2
whatever you want to call it, third-party interview types of
3
people but I think they should get a representative sample
4
of what's going on in the Admissions Office and it's hard to
5
think they can do that with 11.
6
7
MR. STRAWBRIDGE:
Can I just say a couple
things in response?
8
THE COURT:
Sure.
9
MR. STRAWBRIDGE:
First of all, I just want to
10
make sure that we're clear.
11
about here is the custodians.
12
third-party alumni interviewers as custodians in this case.
13
There is a separate issue with respect to identifying
14
potential witnesses.
15
I think what we're talking
We haven't asked for any
But with respect to custodians, the other people
16
that we -- the alumni interviewers (ph.) are people who were
17
actually mentioned in a deposition as the people who
18
interfaced with the Admissions Office when there are
19
requests from alumni or from donors to have certain people
20
admitted.
21
neutral alternatives available to Harvard and their
22
admissions process directly so I guess I don't agree that
23
those people have no role in the admissions process.
24
25
That plays right into both some of the race
We do have evidence we'd be happy to submit in
support of that, if you'd like, but, you know, my only
12
1
concern about going back is we have been trying to negotiate
2
this for a while.
3
I know that you think our number seems high.
4
rights case.
5
we've been willing to meet in the middle.
6
movement out of them so I guess I'm a little worried that if
7
we, you know, that it's just going to be, we're just going
8
to be back here in another month and we're not making
9
progress.
10
We've come down from our initial number.
It's a civil
We think that the number is appropriate but
THE COURT:
All right.
We've gotten no
So, I mean, I'm happy
11
to, I mean, now that this trial has resolved itself, I'm
12
happy to take a deeper dive into the letters and just issue
13
an opinion and an order, both on the discovery issue and the
14
motion for reconsideration.
15
16
MR. STRAWBRIDGE:
I think we would be fine
with that.
17
THE COURT:
18
MS. ELLSWORTH:
19
THE COURT:
20
Anything else today?
21
MR. WAXMAN:
22
25
That's fine, Your Honor.
Okay.
That's what I'll do then.
Congratulations on finishing your
trial.
23
24
Okay.
THE COURT:
Have you been following this
trial?
MR. WAXMAN:
Yes.
13
1
THE COURT:
Really good, cutting edge kind of
2
and interesting, good lawyering all the way around which
3
made it nice.
4
5
MR. CONSOVOY:
A couple more, we have a couple
more points, Your Honor.
6
Quickly though, I think we are getting to stuff
7
inside the protective order and I think there may be people
8
in the room who are not covered by that protective order, I
9
just want to be careful about that.
10
11
MS. ELLSWORTH:
think, not yours.
12
13
It's our protective order I
MR. CONSOVOY:
Right, there are people in the
courtroom who are not covered by that protective order.
14
MS. ELLSWORTH:
15
What order, is it database?
(Whereupon, counsel conferred.)
16
MR. CONSOVOY:
Database, I want to talk a
17
little bit more about matriculating students and the
18
issue --
19
MS. ELLSWORTH:
So, Your Honor, if we're going
20
to talk about individual database fields, we have designated
21
those as "attorneys' eyes only" under the protective order.
22
We would ask that our folks here from our firm could stay
23
and there are others we'd ask might be excused or we can try
24
and talk at a high level of generality, whichever Your Honor
25
prefers.
14
1
THE COURT:
I'm fine either way.
2
to -- I am not going to clear the courtroom.
3
I am happy
back and do this.
4
MR. CONSOVOY:
We can go out
I can keep it high level.
I
5
just wanted to make sure we -- I didn't want to jeopardize
6
your interests as well.
7
8
THE COURT:
Who is here who is not covered by
the protective order?
9
(Pause in proceedings.)
10
THE COURT:
If we need to step out, we can.
11
MR. CONSOVOY:
Sure.
So a couple other
12
points.
I take it Your Honor is going to look at the
13
letters and all the issues because you covered only a couple
14
of them.
15
THE COURT:
Yes.
16
MR. CONSOVOY:
There are many issues but I
17
just want to, if I could briefly highlight some that we
18
think are more urgent than ours.
19
On the databases, Your Honor --
20
THE COURT:
Yes.
21
MR. CONSOVOY:
-we think that the number of
22
years is quite insufficient.
When I was here in one of the
23
earlier hearings, I raised a concern that I would be empty
24
handed at the podium in front of an appellate court because
25
we didn't have the record we needed.
And I think Fisher II
15
1
bears out my concern that, and I was told I was empty handed
2
there, that three terms of data was insufficient to prove
3
what needed to be proved in Fisher and in all candor was
4
held against us.
5
And so I just want to underline that point as Your
6
Honor goes back and reviews those letters that the Supreme
7
Court indicated, there have been eight years of data, it
8
would be inappropriate to have in a case just like this that
9
we're alleging, I just want to make sure we understand what
10
kind of claims, I know it has been a while since we got into
11
the merits of this.
12
We're alleging that Harvard is engaging in racial
13
balancing of the class over a four-year period.
14
all four years in that period to prove that claim.
15
asking for two full-year periods of data, data that Harvard
16
has, that it can easily produce, that it's not burdensome
17
and that they've already produced two years quite quickly
18
and that it is not privileged.
19
You need
We're
We have also said that we are willing to table any
20
request for application files while we review that data.
21
is our hope, we understand from, we're trying to listen as
22
well, that the Court is concerned about requiring Harvard to
23
produce application files.
24
25
It
We hear that.
This is the solution in the short term.
If we can
get those eight years, we think, and get the fields that we
16
1
need within them, they have redacted fields that are
2
essential to understanding the process.
3
charge of this case deciding what fields are relevant and
4
what fields are not.
5
Harvard can't be in
Our experts have to figure that out for themselves.
6
Things like -- I'm going to try to stay general here.
We've
7
identified those fields in our letters.
8
what they are but they are central to determining how
9
applicants are compared head-to-head, how different schools
I won't tell you
10
are compared, how different regions in the country are
11
compared.
12
If you review the deposition transcripts which
13
we've highlighted, this is essential to what they do.
14
think our general frustration in this case has been -- and
15
without getting into the very particular issues -- that we
16
have asked for information that is relevant, that is not
17
covered by any federal or state common law privilege, that
18
is not burdensome to produce or duplicative.
19
said no because of a general privacy concern and because
20
they don't think it's important enough for us to get.
21
22
23
I
Harvard has
That's just now how discovery works in a civil
rights case.
THE COURT:
Okay.
I am going to go back to
24
these letters but just so you understand where I am coming
25
from, I limited discovery significantly while Fisher was
17
1
pending because it wasn't clear to me what would be
2
relevant, how much of your case would be left, how, what
3
they would do in response to Fisher.
4
came out where it came out.
5
have some reason to be emboldened (ph.) but now we are going
6
to have real discovery, like we are going to get to this and
7
it is going to get done.
8
9
And, you know, Fisher
Your case lives on.
They can
I am, I remain concerned about the applicant files
and if I can balance it out, I will.
As I sit here, I am
10
happy to hear you on it.
11
me, especially where it limits the applicant files which is
12
what I am really concerned about, but we are going to do
13
sort of fulsome discovery at this point.
14
Eight years doesn't sound crazy to
Now we know what the parameters are.
We know what
15
the legal standard is more or less.
To the extent it
16
clarified it, it clarified it.
17
less limited than it has been, now that you know what the
18
parameters are and we won't, we're not so much at risk of
19
having to do it and then do it again.
20
going to be broader than it's been.
21
happy to hear you on it but eight years doesn't sound crazy
22
to me.
And it is going to be a lot
So, I mean, it's
And eight years -- I'm
23
MR. WAXMAN:
Before you rule --
24
THE COURT:
I'm not ruling today.
25
MR. WAXMAN:
-- it is a serious misreading of
18
1
Fisher to say three years in any case, and this is a case in
2
which two years has produced 70,000, records of 70,000
3
applicants.
4
been hard at work on this, have not been able to come up
5
with statistically significant trends that they can talk
6
about out of the sample of 70,000, that's simply because
7
they aren't there.
8
9
If their empirical people, who I am sure have
Now, I understand the argument that more years is
better and we're talking about data.
We're not just talking
10
about data.
11
possibly the year before and the following year, are
12
essentially using, the same data is being colleted under the
13
same conventions.
14
The two years that we produced, and I believe
As you go back farther and farther, we haven't
15
looked at this except to know that different data was
16
collected using different criteria and there will be
17
significant work to sort of harmonize it so that year
18
after -- year against year can be evaluated.
19
I think it's important to understand this is not a
20
damages case.
This is a case asking for prospective
21
injunctive relief.
22
any meaningful discovery into the standing of this case but
23
they've identified, quote, "members" in the classes for the
24
years in which we've produced.
25
has a claim or has made a claim with respect to, you know,
They have some -- we still don't have
They don't have anybody who
19
1
all of these prior years.
2
whole admission cycle, that is four years, I think it's
3
important to understand here that there is no dispute that
4
Harvard is assembling classes among an extremely large
5
number of highly qualified applicants class by class.
6
have two full classes and they can evaluate the extent to
7
which the decisions that are made over an admission cycle
8
reflect intentional discrimination.
9
argument for somehow including a four-year range --
10
11
THE COURT:
And if the argument is we need a
They
Even if there were an
Let me ask you this:
So if they -- one of their claims is that there is
12
an impermissible quota system.
13
some class of people, I don't care, we can talk about any
14
one you want, Asian Americans or, you know, whoever else,
15
and the percentage of them in those two classes is the same,
16
which I think is what they allege in their Complaint, right?
17
That the percentage is the same year after year?
18
19
MR. WAXMAN:
That's what they allege.
It's
not what they can prove but --
20
21
And let's just say there is
THE COURT:
But how do you prove or disprove
that by the statistics of two years?
22
MR. WAXMAN:
Those numbers are publicly
23
available.
They have them just as we have them.
Harvard
24
publishes every single year.
25
hundreds of thousands of other applicant files on a huge
They don't need a database of
20
1
number of variables to know what the percentage of Asian
2
Americans, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Pacific
3
Islanders, White Anglos, Jews have been accepted every year.
4
THE COURT:
But is it not relevant, I mean, if
5
you have -- and I'm just making it up, I'm Jewish so I'll
6
say that, I'll use Jewish.
7
people every year, isn't that relevant to the significance
8
of that number how many Jewish applicants you had?
9
isn't that what changes year over year?
10
If you have ten percent Jewish
And
Because if it is ten percent out of the exact same
11
number, that means one thing, but if it's always ten percent
12
and the number of applications fluctuates, does that not
13
mean something else?
14
MR. WAXMAN:
Sure, if there were wild
15
fluctuations in applications and the same percentage were
16
accepted every year, that would be a data point to argue
17
that what was going on was, in fact, ethnic or racial
18
balancing.
19
20
21
THE COURT:
How are they supposed to know that
with only seeing two years?
MR. WAXMAN:
Yeah, I mean, we can do this very
22
simply without transferring hundreds of thousands -- data
23
from hundreds of thousands of files.
24
aggregate for them the number of Asian American applicants,
25
the number of Jewish applicants, all the self-reporting data
Simply, we can simply
21
1
going back eight years if that's the issue.
2
The question is whether we have to turn over for
3
years and years before any plaintiff ever had any claim in
4
this case or any member of a plaintiff had any claims in
5
this case in order to show them that, yes, in, you know, in
6
2012 we had X number of Jewish applicants who self-reported
7
as Jewish and Y number of Jewish matriculants, that can be
8
done.
9
That's not the whole database.
I think if there is any argument for more than
10
70,000, the data from 70,000 files, it certainly wouldn't be
11
for more than four years.
12
experience.
13
than two years but I don't understand how we immediately
14
devolved to eight years.
That's an entire college
I don't think there is an argument for more
15
MR. CONSOVOY:
16
Fisher eight years was the right number.
17
read the opinion.
18
would like to have the last eight years to evaluate the
19
current system.
20
years was essentially woefully insufficient.
21
22
23
The Supreme Court said in
They weren't guessing.
Your Honor can
They said we
That is direct -- and they said that three
So, I don't need to re-read the opinion for Your
Honor but it's there.
Second, this kind of argument is exactly what I
24
have been talking about.
Harvard has been trying to
25
litigate the merits of the case on the first day of
22
1
discovery.
2
information in them that is likely to lead to discoverable
3
evidence.
4
All we're looking for are databases with
This is a Title VI claim.
If this were a Title VII
5
claim for a pattern and practice of racial discrimination,
6
that would similarly be for prospective relief; but, of
7
course, when you're evaluating the pattern and practice you
8
have to look backwards to evaluate what the current policy
9
is.
And Your Honor hit it exactly on the head in terms of
10
needing more, it's actually much more than Your Honor said
11
but you said it right.
12
That is conveniently the one field that Harvard doesn't make
13
publicly available.
14
applicants but they won't tell you how many from each racial
15
group applied.
16
it's the information behind that that's equally important.
17
We don't just have the quota claim.
18
claims.
19
have a claim that under Grubb (ph.) race is more than a
20
non-predominant factor in admissions.
21
We don't know how many applied.
They tell you everything about their
That has always been interesting to us.
But
That is one of our
It's, you know, one of our main claims but we also
Now, you have to do a head-to-head -- and Your
22
Honor brought this point up in a previous status conference.
23
Head-to-head comparisons are going to be very important over
24
time.
25
dissimilarly?
Are people of similar qualifications being treated
We need to know.
And I'm not talking about
23
1
what's actually in the database now.
2
same high schools?
3
They've withheld aspects of a person's application that they
4
deem essential to the admissions decision.
5
I'll leave -- I won't belabor it but this is my point:
6
Do people go to the
They've withheld extracurriculars.
So this is, and
Harvard wants to be in charge of what we get to
7
see.
If they haven't, if they don't know what their systems
8
look like over the past year of this stay, then they haven't
9
been looking.
How could they not know at this point -- I,
10
mean, Your Honor asked us to all be diligent and be ready --
11
not know how they kept their data and whether it would be
12
easily -- we've been asking for a year.
13
for multiple years for a long time now.
14
We've been asking
All we're asking for are databases to avoid getting
15
files.
16
years, it's two cycles of experience.
17
This is a, I think just straightforward.
It's eight
And the last point is it's not just that it's ten,
18
ten, ten every year.
Our claim is that if it bumps up one
19
year, they bump it down the next, right, so that over a
20
four-year period the Jewish number would average out to ten
21
and so you need to see those bumps, right, and you need to
22
see them over multiple cycles.
23
At summary judgment if they want to argue that
24
it's, you know, not good evidence, not strong evidence,
25
that's what summary judgment is for.
That's what a trial is
24
1
for.
Discovery goes beyond the bare essential claims and
2
says what's out there.
3
I think this is straightforward.
MR. WAXMAN:
So this is an odd case in that
4
the discovery in this case is, I mean, I understand Your
5
Honor is considering our reconsideration motion but even if
6
it were warranted, it is unbelievably lopsided.
7
talking about discovery of an institution that is, A,
8
nonprofit, and, B, imbued with protection of the First
9
Amendment.
We're
I mean, other than the Fisher case it's hard to
10
recall an opinion that the Supreme Court has in which the
11
Supreme Court has adjudicated what goes on in universities
12
without hearing about the First Amendment and the extent to
13
which the First Amendment protects.
14
Secondly, with respect to the database fields,
15
we're happy to come in and talk with Your Honor about what
16
fields, particularly what fields, what it is that we're not
17
producing, but we are concerned as, Your Honor knows, with
18
the privacy of people who apply to Harvard and who attend
19
Harvard and who did not choose to be part of this lawsuit.
20
And the things that we have, the fields that we haven't
21
produced are fields that we believe would either implicate a
22
FERPA notification but more importantly would permit the
23
identification of a student, a student who had the following
24
extracurriculars and went to this high school.
25
THE COURT:
So, I mean, we've been around
25
1
this, we've been around this before, but let me ask you this
2
so I understand.
3
So we get to summary judgment or trial, wherever
4
we're going on this, and they say these few applicants are
5
equal and this one that's selected wasn't.
6
to that and say no, this guy was captain of his football
7
team.
8
not giving them, if you're not giving them information that
9
they need to differentiate?
10
And then you get
How are they supposed to guard against that if you're
MR. WAXMAN:
Well, look, obviously we are not
11
going to be -- we are going to be constrained in the same
12
way that they are.
13
If we're talking about applicant, applicant files,
14
I don't know how they're going to be able to say this guy is
15
the same as this guy based on a database record.
16
THE COURT:
17
MR. WAXMAN:
18
THE COURT:
19
MR. WAXMAN:
20
THE COURT:
But something like -If all we produce is the data -Something like being captain -Excuse me?
Something like being captain of
21
the football team, let's say that you're like, let's just
22
say that you're an African American captain of the football
23
team in a predominantly white area.
24
something important about that candidate, it says a lot of
25
important things about that candidate.
That tells you
How are they
26
1
supposed to know that if you're not kind of giving them what
2
makes that kid unique?
3
MR. WAXMAN:
There is going to be, I mean,
4
they are getting deposition testimony from -- I mean,
5
they've already deposed the Director of Admissions.
6
undoubtedly will depose the Dean of Admissions and others
7
within the Admissions Office about how this works and how
8
these individual considerations work.
9
They
If you're asking about a head-to-head between
10
candidate X and candidate Y, that's an argument which I
11
think requires a disclosure.
12
have an admissions officer say, yeah, I looked at this file
13
and I looked at this file and here's why I think the
14
committee of 40 voted this way in this case and voted this
15
way in another case.
16
On those terms you'd have to
We're not talking about -- we're not talking here
17
about the number of electronic, the data -- the size of the
18
database and the fields that are identified.
19
understand, and maybe it would be easier for us to argue
20
about the case if we had, if we didn't have the privacy
21
constraints that we're operating under.
22
that this is a balance and we have to live by whatever it is
23
that the Court rules just as the other side does.
24
25
I fully
But we understand
You know, I've heard from Mr. Consovoy a number of
times about this is not how discovery works.
They made
27
1
their allegations.
2
we have to defend against it and we can't haul out at trial
3
something that we have refused to produce to them, and Your
4
Honor has upheld, as a way of defending the case.
5
They're going to put on their case and
THE COURT:
If I ordered you to produce the
6
database in a way that, you know, arguably like, like, let's
7
just say that you give a certain zip code, there's only one
8
high school in that zip code and there's only one football
9
captain, if that.
10
Arguably you've put out enough data to
figure out who this kid is.
11
If I ordered you to produce a database that have
12
these three pieces of information, does that trigger your
13
FERPA obligations do you think?
14
MS. ELLSWORTH:
I think we would take the
15
position that a FERPA notice with that combination would
16
require FERPA.
17
MR. CONSOVOY:
Your Honor, it might implicate
18
that one isolated, it's just a notice.
19
about -- it's just a notice that has to go out to comply
20
with FERPA.
21
22
If Harvard wants to make a privacy argument -THE COURT:
It is not just a notice.
It's not
just a notice.
23
MR. CONSOVOY:
24
THE COURT:
25
We're not talking
opportunity to object.
I believe it's just a notice.
The other person gets an
It's a process.
28
1
MR. CONSOVOY:
Sure.
UNC sent out notice to
2
all the people.
3
If that came up, then we'd actually have, but then we'd
4
actually have a real issue; right?
5
issue right now.
6
extracurriculars are going to be withheld in determining
7
whether their admission decisions are legitimate.
8
There has been -- nobody has weighed in.
We don't have a real
We have Harvard saying, remarkably, that
The deposition itself, the deposition itself
9
identified all of the characteristics essential to the case.
10
We would prefer to be able to litigate our own case the way
11
we'd like to.
12
admission decision.
13
contrary to that.
14
given us.
15
We believe the information is relevant to the
I promise you Harvard will not say
It's in the database they've already
We just want the field to be not disclosed.
We have a protective order in place.
It was, Your
16
Honor noted, heavily negotiated.
17
purpose, so that the parties could freely produce the data
18
that was necessary to resolve the case.
19
data.
20
It was negotiated for this
We simply need the
We cannot litigate our case without it.
MR. WAXMAN:
Well, it's true that the FERPA
21
notice permits objections and there could be litigation
22
about that but the privacy interest here that FERPA is aimed
23
at protecting, and, frankly, it's an institutional concern
24
(ph.) at Harvard is, yes, so everybody now knows that, you
25
know, I could apply to Harvard, I can apply to Yale, I could
29
1
apply to Stanford, I could apply to Duke, but if I apply to
2
Harvard, you know what?
3
that is likely to be produced or could be produced or has
4
been ordered to be produced in other years that would allow
5
me to be identified.
6
that the notice goes out that, yes, these personally
7
identifying features in the files will be disclosed.
8
weren't for that concern, we would be very happy to produce
9
all of these files insofar as there are data -- these
10
11
There is information from my file
It's a competitive concern for Harvard
If it
database fields insofar as they bear on determinations.
There is no question that the high school that an
12
applicant went to is a factor that the Admissions Office
13
considers in an effort to achieve the broadest form of
14
diversity possible.
There is no question about that.
15
The question is where you draw the line in order to
16
protect the privacy of individual people who never wanted to
17
be part of this lawsuit, the vast majority of whom aren't
18
even at Harvard, against the interests in finding out
19
everything possible that might possibly be relevant to what
20
the plaintiffs think they want to show.
21
THE COURT:
Well, so I don't really buy the
22
idea that this would put Harvard at a competitive
23
disadvantage.
24
about not so much just generally identifying it, you know,
25
some kid applied to Harvard but more than that, the personal
I am somewhat concerned about people's --
30
1
2
stuff in their application.
So, I mean, let's just say, I mean, what is the
3
exact privacy interest sort of implicated here in the
4
database?
5
data, right, in the database?
You get who applied and you get sort of objective
6
MS. ELLSWORTH:
Yes, there are certain -- some
7
of the fields that are in question have the narrative
8
entries so they're going to be, it's going to be descriptive
9
self-entered information about an individual's
10
extracurricular or honors, other biographical type
11
information.
12
relate to, sort of a rating or something that an Admissions
13
Officer has provided, some of which doesn't relate to the
14
admissions process at all.
15
like that, are taken into account in the admissions
16
decision.
17
been produced in fields we're talking about here that were
18
raised in SFFA's letter, they are the narrative fields that
19
say "captain of X" as opposed to football or however many
20
hours per week were spent on football, just to use that as
21
an example.
22
There is some other fields at issue that
The extracurriculars, things
Lots of extracurricular information has already
So it's not that no extracurricular information has
23
been produced and no honors information has been produced.
24
The vast majority of the information that bears on the
25
admissions decision has been produced.
It's these fields
31
1
that have the more narrative descriptions of what somebody
2
did or the role that they played which we think, you know,
3
has poured over into the personally identifiable limit and
4
then we get into just serious privacy concerns.
5
THE COURT:
I don't think just, I don't think
6
just identifying somebody raises a very high privacy concern
7
but to be able to link somebody's identity with some
8
personal background information seems to me a bigger
9
intrusion.
10
MR. STRAWBRIDGE:
I just want to remind Your
11
Honor that the protective order in this case already
12
relieves them of any obligation to produce actual names and
13
addresses, anything like that.
14
We also agreed that to the extent the narrative
15
field included that actual information, that they could
16
redact data on a field-by-field basis.
17
THE COURT:
But what they're saying is that if
18
you put together some of those fields in a small school in a
19
small town in a rural state or whatever, that you could
20
figure out who these people are.
21
MR. STRAWBRIDGE:
So that's true, although if
22
you recall, the protective order actually has a provision
23
that they insisted on that we agreed to that actually
24
prohibits us from doing that upon, you know, pain of
25
contempt of this Court.
We actually agreed that we weren't
32
1
going to try to do that gumshoe work.
2
identify anybody.
3
predominant factor in the admissions decision.
4
We're not trying to
We're trying to understand what is the
And I don't understand, if the narrative field says
5
that you're the captain versus just a player, if the
6
narrative field says that you were the leader of your
7
extracurricular club as opposed to just a member, that the
8
narrative field says that you did this or you achieved this
9
accomplishment, how can that not be a factor that is
10
relevant to the admissions decision in trying to weigh as to
11
whether --
12
THE COURT:
It's clearly relevant to the
13
admissions process and I'm trying to sort out whether the
14
privacy intrusion outweighs the relevance.
15
telling you is they have just been able to identify the
16
person sort of doesn't unduly distress me but are there
17
things beyond that that should?
18
MS. ELLSWORTH:
And what I'm
Well, I guess I'm not sure
19
what it is that would be concerning to Your Honor.
There is
20
a whole wealth of information about marital status, parents'
21
marital status, financial, socioeconomic status, whether
22
someone is disadvantaged or eligible for financial aid,
23
things like that that may spill more over into the types of
24
information that is more than just identifying who the
25
person is by very personal facts about themselves or their
33
1
family or their background.
2
MR. CONSOVOY:
Disadvantage is at the heart of
3
this case.
4
answered.
In answering they're saying our allegations are
5
plausible.
Every -- and it's in our letter, Your Honor.
6
Everything we're asking for is directly tied to an
7
allegation that they answered saying it's plausible.
8
9
I mean, again, we filed a Complaint.
Harvard
We argue in Count 6, Count 5 and Count 6, that
race-neutral alternatives, socioeconomic benefit as a
10
preference instead of race would eliminate the use of race.
11
Harvard is withholding who is socioeconomically
12
disadvantaged.
13
I know how it is not relevant.
14
They answered the Complaint.
MR. WAXMAN:
It's relevant.
Our argument is it's not relevant
15
and we think that we've produced fields that actually
16
disclose that.
17
here, Your Honor, is we know what the fields are that we
18
produced and they are arguing about names of certain other
19
fields that aren't being produced.
20
Your Honor's time or tell you how to run your courtroom but
21
it might be worth simply having, you know, one lawyer from
22
each side come in and walk Your Honor through all of the
23
fields that have been produced for 70,000 files already and
24
understand what it is that we're not withholding and then
25
Your Honor can decide how the line is drawn.
I think, one of the problems we're having
I don't want to offer up
I think we've
34
1
articulated what we think the right balance is and the
2
concern that we have.
3
THE COURT:
Well, so that's not a bad idea.
4
And just the way that my day unfolded, I am just not as
5
prepared for this conference as I ought to be so why don't
6
we recess this, unless there are other topics that you want
7
to discuss today, I will go through this, get further along
8
on the decision trail and then have somebody in to sort of
9
talk through whatever issues that remain.
10
MR. CONSOVOY:
11
I have two really short ones.
12
13
That sounds great, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
That's fine.
I'm not in any
hurry.
14
MR. CONSOVOY:
One is we respect Your Honor's
15
rulings about the, or leanings on the diversity officer but
16
it has raised one, the overall approach did raise one
17
concern.
18
I just want to be heard on that briefly.
We do have claims in this case that go to the
19
experience of matriculating students.
We have a claim and
20
it's in the Supreme Court's opinion on Fisher.
21
says, In reviewing these programs as to whether they reach
22
strict scrutiny, you have to weigh the benefits of them,
23
which Harvard counts, but also the costs.
24
that one of the costs of having these programs is what's
25
called a "mismatch effect."
Fisher II
We have alleged
It's in our Complaint.
35
1
I am not saying we're going to get everything we
2
want on matriculating students.
3
may be different than the custodian issue.
4
understand that, although I do think the Chief Diversity
5
Officer would probably -- communications have real insight
6
into the cost and benefits of using race as an admission
7
criteria.
8
9
We're asking for a less, it
Emails, I
But putting that aside, I just don't want the Court
to be under the impression that this is just about the
10
applications.
11
their program isn't meeting their desired needs.
12
think it would be relevant to the finder of fact not just
13
what the freshman class looks like but what the senior class
14
looks like.
15
Harvard?
16
Are they failing out?
17
cross-racial understanding, which is the premise of their
18
program, occurring at Harvard?
19
point.
20
superficial.
21
We can win this case if we can show that
I would
How are these students doing when they get to
Are they succeeding in the majors they've chosen?
Are they having a positive -- is
This was Justice Kennedy's
This can't be a paper case.
This can't be
These are deep, important issues.
I understand that there are going to be, that's why
22
they chose to use race in the admissions.
23
price.
24
the Courts.
25
That comes with a
The price is there is going to be some intrusion by
And I just want to let the Court know that the
36
1
matriculating students are not part of our case.
2
indirectly relevant.
3
MR. WAXMAN:
They're
Look, the -- I think we will be
4
arguing for however long Your Honor has this case about what
5
Fisher II decided.
6
point that it is the university and the university gets
7
great deference in defining what success is and defining
8
what an appropriately diverse class is.
9
Fisher II was very, very clear on the
And in direct response to the points that my
10
friends here were making in Fisher, that if you simply
11
didn't take race into account, you would have, I don't know,
12
smarter students, more academically-prepared students.
13
The Supreme Court said, The University gets to
14
decide this.
15
theory I think is over in light of Fisher II.
16
17
And this so-called and quite odious mismatched
Now, Your Honor can decide that at an appropriate
time but --
18
THE COURT:
19
Scalia.
20
It may be over given the death of
but --
21
That itself might have been but for the death now
MR. WAXMAN:
Well, the author, the person who
22
wrote the book on the Mismatched Theory, Stuart Taylor, one
23
of the -- a friend of mine and one of the intellectual
24
pro-genders of the plaintiff's case has already published
25
something saying this litigation is over unless the next
37
1
President gets to support, gets to appoint two presidents
2
with extremely different views.
3
a one-off case, these theories are gone.
4
These theories, this is not
Now, I'm not saying that that's how Your Honor
5
should rule in this case; but the notion that a case about
6
race discrimination in admissions requires intrusive
7
discovery about matriculating students and how they're doing
8
so that they can make their own case about Harvard, how
9
Harvard should be defined in success is beyond the pale.
10
MR. CONSOVOY:
Harvard is making my initial
11
point every time Mr. Waxman stands up.
12
litigate our case for us.
13
We have a claim.
They want to
The claim has merit.
14
answered.
15
we would have heard from them in their letter to the Court
16
about Fisher II that, there is nothing in there that says
17
that.
18
these programs.
19
Nothing in Fisher II forecloses it.
It was
If it did,
It says we must measure the costs and benefits of
Deference is a summary judgment issue, Your Honor.
20
He makes my point.
21
judgment today so don't give them the information that is
22
relevant to their claim.
23
Harvard wants to say we win summary
We're asking for limited information.
I would
24
think -- I don't understand how it couldn't be relevant, I
25
am just hypothesizing this, it is not the case.
If all
38
1
minority students were having unsuccessful experiences at
2
Harvard, if they were dropping out of their majors, could
3
anybody say that that's not relevant to Harvard's compelling
4
government interest in the use of race?
5
relevant.
6
time later in the case -- they agreed to an 11-month
7
discovery for a reason.
8
litigate how far deference goes, how much, what is the line
9
between good faith and bad faith.
All we want is the data.
10
that yet.
11
Of course it's
There will be plenty of
There will be plenty of time to
We are nowhere even near
basic data.
12
13
14
15
We have a long way to go here.
We just want some
And all we're saying today is matriculating
information is relevant to the case.
MR. WAXMAN:
That's it.
The fact that we answered the
Complaint and denied it doesn't say anything.
16
THE COURT:
17
MR. WAXMAN:
And --
I agree.
And there may very well be at an
18
appropriate point in time in which we can identify for the
19
Court counts of the Complaint that are no longer viable in
20
light of Fisher II.
21
The point here is that the privacy interests of the
22
matriculating students are greatly implicated by this, a
23
case which challenges race discrimination in admissions.
24
have, we understand that we have two prongs that we have to
25
satisfy to carry our burden.
And the first one is to
We
39
1
explain what we are looking for in a student class and how
2
we go about getting it.
3
And the second is to demonstrate why there are no
4
appropriate and sufficient, quote, race-neutral alternatives
5
that get us there.
6
burden to -- since we have acknowledged that we engage in
7
race-conscious admissions, we have to prove those two things
8
to the Court.
9
We understand that that, it is our
And we will.
But inquiries into the records and successes and
10
performances and failures of matriculating students is
11
unbelievably intrusive and quite orthogonal to what the
12
legal theory in this Complaint should be or is.
13
14
MR. CONSOVOY:
It should be was, again, my
point.
15
THE COURT:
I get it, I get it.
16
MR. CONSOVOY:
My only point is if there was a
17
motion to dismiss it would have been filed, which means the
18
allegations are plausible and the discovery rulings as I
19
understand it are tied to whether the information is
20
relevant to a claim that has been entered.
21
point.
22
I've said my piece on that.
23
That was my only
And I don't think anybody disagrees that it is.
I just want to add, there is an issue we want to
24
raise for Your Honor.
It's not before you today.
25
do with Mr. Lee's appearance.
It has to
He is on the Board of Fellows
40
1
for Harvard.
2
THE COURT:
Yes.
3
MR. CONSOVOY:
It has raised a concern about
4
whether he may or may not be a potential witness in this
5
case.
6
this issue right now.
7
Court.
8
information we need to evaluate the question.
9
it never has to come before the Court but we want to make
10
sure that you're aware of the concern and that the parties
11
are working through it.
The parties are both in good faith working through
We're not putting it before the
Everyone has -- we are working to get the
12
THE COURT:
13
MR. LEE:
We hope that
Okay.
And, Your Honor, I called
14
Mr. Consovoy the day I entered my appearance to explain to
15
him that I had acted as Senior Fellow but before I entered
16
my appearance I completely recused myself from all of my
17
fiduciary obligations having anything to do with this case.
18
I have actually given them information to prove that to
19
them.
20
am not participating in anything at the corporation level
21
that has to do with the case.
They're communicating with
22
Mr. Waxman and Ms. Ellsworth.
I'm just here to be one of
23
the foot soldiers at the trial.
And that once I did that and entered my appearance, I
24
MR. CONSOVOY:
25
THE COURT:
I don't want to --
An impressive foot soldier.
41
1
(Laughter.)
2
MR. LEE:
Thank you.
3
MR. WAXMAN:
4
MR. CONSOVOY:
We think so.
We respect him.
We don't want
5
this to be an issue but I have a duty to my client and our
6
concern goes to things that were done before or earlier than
7
when that switch was made.
8
9
THE COURT:
Okay.
That's fine.
If it comes
before me, I will deal with it.
10
You look like you want to speak back there.
11
MR. CREGOR:
Thank you, Your Honor.
12
Cregor for the student intervenor.
13
Matt
matters.
14
Just a quick two
First, I'm very happy to be here in the role that
15
you granted us.
16
We ask that if matters come up for which we need
17
clarification that we have the opportunity to seek it.
18
As intervenor we're monitoring discovery.
For example, we wondered, Your Honor, if there is
19
some way to be generally informed of discovery such that
20
when the dispositive motion arises we have some sense of
21
what's leading up to it.
22
now for consideration later.
Just something to raise for you
23
And then, lastly, we received a great deal of
24
Interest from both current and prospective students at
25
Harvard about this case.
As the school year starts we would
42
1
wish to add some students to our group of Amici.
2
wanted to flag it for the Court now.
3
THE COURT:
I just
I mean, I'll let the parties speak
4
on that but I don't have any issue with you adding or
5
subtracting people as is appropriate.
6
7
MR. CONSOVOY:
On the
other we would have concerns.
8
MS. ELLSWORTH:
9
THE COURT:
10
On that issue, no.
No concerns.
Okay.
We will cross that bridge
when we get there.
11
MR. CREGOR:
12
THE COURT:
Thank you very much, Your Honor.
All right:
We'll get working on
13
this.
I'm sorry, I've been just a little bit -- I tried
14
that criminal case, it was eight weeks.
15
ten to four which has left just literally around the margins
16
so my bad on that but it just ended up being more consuming
17
than I anticipated.
18
MR. CONSOVOY:
We tried it from
Your Honor, one final
19
technicality.
20
we can start doing that we don't have to wait on your --
21
Is the stay lifted?
THE COURT:
Yes, the stay is lifted other than
22
the issues that you raised in here.
23
to that too.
24
25
Because there are things
I mean, it's lifted as
I just don't perceive any progress until I -MR. CONSOVOY:
We may have additional
discovery to propound and things like that.
43
1
2
THE COURT:
Okay.
That's fine.
All right.
3
VOICES:
4
THE CLERK:
Thank you.
Thank you, Your Honor.
Court is adjourned.
5
6
(WHEREUPON, the proceedings were recessed at 4:00
7
p.m.)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, Carol Lynn Scott, Official Court Reporter for
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages
are a true and accurate transcription of my shorthand notes
taken in the aforementioned matter to the best of my skill
and ability.
/S/CAROL LYNN SCOTT
_________________________________________
CAROL LYNN SCOTT
Official Court Reporter
John J. Moakley Courthouse
1 Courthouse Way, Suite 7204
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
(617) 330-1377
DATE: August 3, 2016
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?