Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College et al
Filing
319
Letter/request (non-motion) from SFFA in response to Harvard's letter of May 23 regarding 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 24, 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 SFFA submits this reply in support of its request for a stay of any discovery
deadlines until the Court rules on the pending discovery disputes (Doc. 315).
Harvard acknowledges through its letter in opposition (Doc. 318) that there are
numerous pending discovery disputes, some of which have been pending for many
months. Beyond that, Harvard’s letter is non-responsive. The fundamental point that
prompted SFFA’s request is indisputable: the Court must resolve these issues at
some point. Simply ignoring SFFA’s pending motions would violate basic principles
of fairness and due process. The notion that the Court would leave these disputes
permanently unresolved—especially in a civil-rights action of this significance—is
unimaginable.
The only question, then, is whether it is better administratively to grant SFFA’s
request or instead to permit the discovery deadline to expire, and then re-open
discovery after the Court decides the motions. This is an easy call. There is little to
be gained by forcing the parties to close and then to re-open fact discovery. And that
is exactly what would happen no matter how the Court rules on the underlying
motions. For example, the Court has already held that SFFA is entitled to some
number of Harvard’s summary sheets. The dispute is over how many SFFA will
receive. Likewise, the parties agree that SFFA will receive some number of
application files; the dispute is just over how many. No matter when the Court rules,
Harvard will need to produce these documents. Accordingly, allowing the factdiscovery period to expire beforehand would needlessly complicate this case and
prejudice SFFA. Indeed, SFFA is already being prejudiced by, among other things,
having to proceed with scheduling and taking depositions without the benefit of
documents Harvard has been waiting to produce. Like all litigants, SFFA is entitled
to receive and utilize these (and other documents) it has requested prior to
discovery closing.
Hon. Allison D. Burroughs
May 24, 2017
Page 2
In contrast, a stay would save the parties time and expense while allowing ongoing
discovery to continue until the Court makes the necessary rulings. At that point, the
parties can work together to facilitate the remaining discovery and, if necessary, to
adjust the fact and expert deadlines to accommodate the time needed to comply
with the Court’s rulings.
Instead of acknowledging the obstructive effect the pending motions are having on
this case, Harvard relitigates the merits of these disputes and again laments the
discovery obligations that defendants accused of systematic racial discrimination
must bear. Harvard is entitled to oppose SFFA’s requests—and it has. But it cannot
dispute that SFFA is entitled to rulings on discovery motions that were timely filed.1
Granting SFFA’s request for a stay under the current circumstances would allow the
pending disputes to be resolved in an orderly fashion.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Patrick Strawbridge
Patrick Strawbridge
cc:
ECF recipients
1 Harvard
does not dispute that SFFA’s document requests are timely. Its suggestion that SFFA
somehow delayed in noticing depositions ignores the fact that it took Harvard until the end of
March—nine months into discovery—to complete its production in response to requests served two
years ago, as well as the fact that Harvard’s admissions officers were (at its own insistence)
unavailable for four of the five months between November and March.
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?