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

Filing 315

Letter/request (non-motion) from SFFA requesting stay of discovery deadlines. (Strawbridge, Patrick)

Ten Post Office Square
8th Floor South PMB #706
Boston, MA 02109
617.227.0548
www.consovoymccarthy.com

May 19, 2017
VIA ECF
Hon. Allison D. Burroughs
U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts
John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse
1 Courthouse Way, Suite 2300
Boston, MA 02210
Re:

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College,
No. 1:14-cv-14176-ADB

Dear Judge Burroughs,
Plaintiff Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (“SFFA”) respectfully requests that this
Court promptly stay the running of time for discovery—most importantly, the current
deadline for fact discovery of June 20, 2017—until the Court has ruled on all of the
pending discovery motions outlined in SFFA’s letter of April 12, 2017 (the “Letter”).
As the Letter describes, there are a number of pending discovery matters crucial to
SFFA’s ability to develop a complete factual record.1 Some of these matters have been
pending for months. See, e.g., Doc. No. 246 (granting motion to seal competing
proposals for sample of reviewer comments, filed on Feb. 3, 2017, at the Court’s
invitation). Others were filed in the weeks following Harvard’s substantial completion
of documents responsive to SFFA’s First Requests for Production.
Further delay in deciding the motions in this case is likely to prejudice SFFA. In
particular, the lack of guidance from the Court on the pending motions is impeding
SFFA’s ability to schedule its remaining depositions, to obtain important documents
that are necessary before those depositions take place, and to allow expert witnesses
to make progress before the initial expert reports are due. It bears noting that the
current uncertainty has benefitted and emboldened Harvard, which shoulders most
of the discovery obligations in this case and which has increasingly refused even to
negotiate on a number of discovery matters that could easily be resolved with the
Court’s engagement.
Harvard opposes this request on the ground that it objects to any extension of the
discovery schedule in this case. But SFFA is not seeking at this point a simple
While the Court recently issued decisions on SFFA’s motions to quash certain depositions
and on third-party Boston Latin School’s motion to quash a subpoena, there remain
numerous other issues awaiting the Court’s resolution.
1

Hon. Allison D. Burroughs
May 19, 2017
Page 2

extension of the discovery schedule, although more time may be necessary. What is
needed now are decisions from the Court that will permit this case to move forward.
Once the Court decides these disputed discovery issues, then the parties can discuss
the timely production of remaining documents and the scheduling of remaining
depositions. None of that can take place, however, until the Court resolves the
pending motions.
For these reasons, SFFA respectfully requests that this Court enter an order staying
the further running of all discovery deadlines until it rules upon the pending
discovery motions. To the extent that the Court finds it helpful, SFFA reiterates its
availability for a teleconference or hearing at the Court’s earliest convenience to
facilitate resolution of the outstanding issues.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Patrick Strawbridge
Patrick Strawbridge
cc:

ECF recipients

.