Thomas L Pearson and the Pearson Family Members Foundation, The v. University of Chicago, The
Filing
77
OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; granting 54 Motion to Compel (tjc, Dpty Clk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
THE THOMAS L. PEARSON AND THE
PEARSON FAMILY MEMBERS
FOUNDATION,
Plaintiff and
Counterclaim
Defendant,
vs.
Case No. 18-CV-99-GKF-FHM
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO,
Defendant and
Counterclaimant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Following a hearing and supplemental briefing, this order resolves the outstanding
issue in Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, [Dkt. 54], which addresses what, if any, discovery
Plaintiff may obtain concerning the Defendant’s faculty appointments for the Pearson
Institute. Plaintiff seeks broad discovery into the faculty hiring process contending that the
information is relevant to its claim that Defendant breached the parties’ agreement in
making the faculty appointments. Defendant contends that this aspect of Plaintiff’s suit is
not viable because the parties’ agreement specifically denied Plaintiffs any role or authority
concerning faculty appointments.
Defendant further contends that Plaintiff’s broad
discovery would impair its faculty hiring process. In an attempt to resolve the issue,
Defendant offers to provide some limited discovery which would not include Defendant’s
evaluation of candidates.
Plaintiff is entitled to discovery concerning its claims and Defendant’s defenses.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b). At this stage, the faculty appointments claim remains in the case as
the Court did not dismiss the claim in its Opinion and Order on Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss. [Dkt. 46]. Therefore, Defendant’s argument that the claim lacks merit is not a
basis to deny Plaintiff’s requested discovery.
Concerning Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff’s broad discovery into the faculty
hiring process will impair the process, several considerations counsel against this as a
basis to deny discovery. First, when confronted with the issue a unanimous Supreme Court
held that the faculty evaluation and hiring process was not privileged, nor was discovery
in this area subject to a heightened standard. University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC, 493
U.S. 182, 110 S.Ct. 577, 107 L.Ed.2d 571 (1990). Second, the discovery is highly relevant,
perhaps even essential, to proof of Plaintiff’s faculty appointments claim and the information
is uniquely in Defendant’s control. The relevance is further demonstrated by Defendant’s
intent to rely in some measure on its appointment process in defending the faculty
appointment claim. To fully and fairly litigate its faculty appointment claim, the broad
discovery Plaintiff seeks, including discovery of the standards Defendant applied, is
necessary. Defendant’s offer of limited discovery is not sufficient. Finally, there is a
protective order in the case which will limit further dissemination of the information.
The court appreciates the sensitive nature of employment files in general and in
particular peer evaluation, hiring processes, information provided by candidates for faculty
positions, and information supplied by third parties to the University. Therefore, the court
is open to consideration of limitations on depositions or contacts with witnesses concerning
this area as discovery progresses.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, [Dkt. 54], is GRANTED as to Interrogatory No. 5 and
Request for Production of Document Nos. 24 and 31.
2
SO ORDERED this 3rd day of May, 2019.
3
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?