Thomas L Pearson and the Pearson Family Members Foundation, The v. University of Chicago, The

Filing 123

OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; denying 115 Motion to Compel (tjc, Dpty Clk)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
The Thomas L. Pearson and The Pearson
Family Members Foundation, and Thomas L.
Pearson, individually,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs and Counterclaim
)
Defendants,
)
)
v.
)
)
The University of Chicago,
)
)
Defendant and Counterclaimant. )

Case No. 18-CV-99-GKF-FHM

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Appointment of Special Master to Review University
of Chicago’s Privilege and Other Redactions, [Dkt. 115], has been fully briefed, [Dkts.
120, 122], and is ripe for decision.
Plaintiffs seek appointment of a special master to review all of the documents
Defendants withheld or redacted contending there are a large number of facially
questionable redactions. Plaintiffs also point out that when 8 examples were brought to
Defendant’s attention, Defendant re-reviewed the documents and produced two of them
to Plaintiffs which contained relevant non-privileged information. Plaintiffs argue this
shows a 25% error rate and demonstrates the need to review all 1,500 withheld or
redacted documents.
Defendant opposes the appointment of a special master as unnecessary and
inefficient. Instead, Defendant proposed that Plaintiffs, in good faith, identify the facially
questionable redactions and Defendant will re-review those documents. If a dispute

remains after good faith consultation between counsel, the documents can be reviewed
in camera by the court.1
In light of the relatively small number of documents, the court finds that
Defendant’s suggested procedure is more efficient and better meets the needs of the
case. If a dispute remains after good faith efforts by counsel to resolve the issues, the
documents at issue, along with a brief annotation of Defendant’s basis for the redaction,
shall be submitted to the undersigned for in camera review. The court expects a high
level of cooperation between counsel in this process including Defendant being as
informative to Plaintiffs as possible as to the basis for the redactions.
Finally, concerning the issues of student information and sensitive irrelevant
redactions, the court finds that it is appropriate for Defendant to redact information that
fits these descriptions.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Appointment of Special Master to Review University
of Chicago’s Privilege and Other Redactions, [Dkt. 115], is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 13th day of January, 2019.

1

In keeping with this concept, Defendant submitted the 6 documents withheld after re-review for in camera
inspection and the court finds that the redactions were appropriate.

2