Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Brown university suit ALREADY IN DISCOVERY; many similarities to Duke suits
Topic Started: Nov 3 2010, 09:43 AM (638 Views)
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/15student.html

Ex-Student Sues Brown Over Rape Accusation
By KATIE THOMAS
Published: April 14, 2010

A former student has sued Brown University in federal court, saying university officials interfered with his efforts to clear his name after another student, the daughter of a prominent Brown alumnus and donor, accused him of rape.

In documents unsealed Monday, the former student, William McCormick III, said the university had failed to follow its own disciplinary policies and sent him home to Wisconsin after the woman’s father made calls to top university officials. The rape accusation was never reported to the police by Brown or the woman, according to the lawsuit. Within a month, Mr. McCormick had agreed to a private settlement with the woman’s lawyer: if he withdrew from Brown, she would not file criminal charges.

(snip)

At a hearing on Monday, Judge William E. Smith of Federal District Court in Providence, R.I., questioned why Brown never reported the alleged attack to the police. “The thought that with all the people involved in this matter at different levels, a determination is made to not tell law enforcement, even the Brown Police Department — I’m having trouble getting that,” Judge Smith said, according to The Associated Press. He also characterized the lawsuit as “a mess” and told Mr. McCormick’s lawyer, J. Scott Kilpatrick, that some of the assertions appeared to be unsubstantiated.

(snip)



Edited by Quasimodo, Nov 3 2010, 10:11 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

http://www.rid.uscourts.gov/menu/judges/opinions/smith/04282010_1-09CV0474S_MCCORMICK_V_BROWN_UNIVERSITY_U.pdf

Quote:
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND


WILLIAM R. MCCORMICK, III, )
CAROL A. MCCORMICK, and )
WILLIAM R. MCCORMICK, II, )

Plaintiffs, )

v. ) CA. No. 09-474 S

MARCELLA E. DRESDALE, RICHARD )

C. DRESDALE, and BROWN )
UNIVERSITY et al., )

Defendants. )
______________________________)

ORDER

WILLIAM E. SMITH, United States District Judge.

(snip)

Now before the Court are the motions of Brown University
(“Brown”), Ruth Simmons, David Kertzer, Russell Carey, Margaret
Klawunn, Carla Hanson, Terry H. Addison, Robert Samuels, Jonah
(Alan) Ward, Richard Bova, Rosario Navarro, Michelle Nuey, Col.
Mark Porter, Yolanda Castillo-Appollonio, Chung Nguyen, and
Shane Reil, all named individually and as agents for Brown
University ( “the individual Brown Defendants”) and Marcella and
Richard Dresdale ( “the Dresdales”) to dismiss all claims in the
First Amended Complaint.

At the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel conceded that many of
the claims brought in the First Amended Complaint (in
particular, those against the individual Brown Defendants) were
premature.
Only after discovery would the basis for the claims,
if any existed, be revealed.


(snip)

Plaintiffs’ counsel has raised a concern that many fact
witnesses from Brown soon will be graduating and presumably
leaving Rhode Island.
Given the existence of pressing time
concerns and the likely need for expedited discovery in this
regard,
the Court has concluded that it is in the interest of
all parties that the Court (to the extent possible) should
convey its rulings in expedited fashion.
To the extent further
explanatory detail may be necessary to explain the holdings
below the Court will address those issues at a future time.

After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and
after oral arguments, it is ordered as follows:

(1) Taking all the allegations set forth in the First
Amended Complaint as true, as is required by Rule 12(b)(6), the
Court is satisfied that William has alleged a pattern of
wrongful conduct based on the collective actions of the agents

of Brown University that, if proven, could be considered
outrageous, atrocious or utterly intolerable conduct on the part
of Brown. See Hoffman v. Davenport-Metcalf, 851 A.2d 1083, 1089
(R.I. 2004). Therefore, the Court DENIES Brown’s motion to
dismiss William’s Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
claim;




(2) The Court agrees that “the particular fact and
circumstances [here] including [1] the relationship between the
parties,
[2] the scope and burden of the obligation to be
imposed upon the defendant, [3] public policy considerations,
and [4] the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff” weigh in
favor of imposing a duty on Brown University to conduct a
reasonable investigation,
and may include contacting the proper
authorities, when confronted with alleged criminal activities by
its students. Santana v. Rainbow Cleaners, Inc., 969 A.2d 653,
658 (R.I. 2009) (internal quotation marks, citations and
alterations omitted). Therefore, the Court DENIES Brown’s
motion to dismiss William’s negligence claim;


(3) The Court GRANTS the individual Brown Defendants’
motion to dismiss William’s Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress and Negligence claims, but does so WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

[presumably this can be refiled AFTER DISCOVERY turns up adequate evidence]

(snip)

(5) The Court GRANTS Brown and the individual Brown
Defendants’ motions to dismiss the Libel claims WITHOUT
PREJUDICE;

[presumably again this can be refiled AFTER DISCOVERY]


(snip)

IT IS SO ORDERED:

/s/ William E. Smith

William E. Smith
United States District JudgeDate: April 28, 2010





Edited by Quasimodo, Nov 3 2010, 10:10 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://www.leadertelegram.com/news/daily_updates/article_e60eaa06-c685-11df-8772-001cc4c03286.html

Ex-Brown student in rape lawsuit seeks documents

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) - A lawyer for a former Brown University student who says he was falsely accused of rape by the daughter of a major donor to the Ivy League school argued for the release Wednesday of a trove of documents, including academic and medical records and any materials that could support or contradict the woman's accusations.

(snip)


U.S. Magistrate David Martin on Wednesday directed Brown and the accuser to start turning over certain documents that McCormick and his lawyer, J. Scott Kilpatrick, have requested as part of the pre-trial information sharing process known as discovery.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

The Judge ruled in TWO WEEKS on the dismissal motions, and PERMITTED DISCOVERY to proceed
so that plaintiffs could find if there was ample evidence to support more of their claims;

and DISCOVERY is proceeding within 6 months after the case was filed.

This is a case against a university and many of its officers for their actions against a student accused of rape.

Now why is this any different or so much more involved than the cases against Duke,

that it has been THREE YEARS and the JUDGE CANNOT EVEN DECIDE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO DISMISS;

AND HE HAS NOT PERMITTED DISCOVERY TO PROCEED TO DETERMINE IF PLAINTIFFS CAN FIND
AMPLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

And Judge Beaty was willing to let Nifong stall the process on a claim of $180 million in liability?

Does anyone think that figure is anything other than preposterous? (Anyone other than Judge Beaty?)
Does anyone really think Nifong would have been held liable for $180 million, even if found liable on
all charges?

And all the while Nifong was at the same time asserting his innocence before the court, or at least his immunity
from judgment?

Was Nifong doing anything other than moon the justice system?

And Judge Beaty permitted it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://www.browndailyherald.com/mccormick-claims-witness-intimidation-in-case-1.2373460

McCormick claims witness intimidation in case


Tuesday, October 19, 2010


William McCormick III's lawyer filed papers in court Monday claiming witness intimidation in his lawsuit against the University, a female member of the class of 2010 and her father.

McCormick's attorney also filed a motion to default against the University for failure to produce documents "promptly" in accord with a Sept. 24 court order compelling it to do so.

The motion against the female alum and her father alleges a similar failure to comply with the court order, in addition to the allegation of witness intimidation. If the motions carry, McCormick will automatically be awarded judgment in the case.

The motion alleges that the female alum's father instructed Brosnan Risk Consultants, a private security firm, to harass former assistant wrestling coach Michael Burch — a witness in the case and advisor to McCormick in the University disciplinary process — and send him the message that he is being followed.

(snip)

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://wrnieducationblog.wordpress.com/

Witness intimidation alleged in Brown rape case

OCTOBER 20, 2010

Attorneys for William McCormick, a former Brown student, claim one of their primary witnesses has been harassed by a private investigator.

(snip)

The court filings also accuse defendants of failing to provide documents related to the case. Brown officials say they have already produced hundreds of documents.

“In early June brown produced approximately 400 pages of documents to the plaintiffs,” says Brown’s attorney in the case, Steven Richard. “Currently Brown is working on a supplemental document production.”

McCormick has accused Brown officials of failing to adequately investigate the rape charge against him, and his attorneys have subpoenaed 18 current and former Brown students as witnesses.

(snip)


The case was filed in APRIL and the defendants had produced 400 pages of documents in Discovery by JUNE.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Who's been wasting the court's time, and likewise the time of the parties to the suits,
and caused the parties considerable expense as well, in the lax cases?

Has Judge Beaty's delay of discovery in the name of 'judicial economy' done anything to save time and money, or to advance
the pursuit of justice?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
Plaintiffs’ counsel has raised a concern that many fact
witnesses from Brown soon will be graduating and presumably
leaving Rhode Island.
Given the existence of pressing time
concerns and the likely need for expedited discovery in this
regard...


How about a "likely need for discovery" before witnesses die?

If students moving away from the area creates a "concern", what does the passing
of several years create for the parties and the court?

This case has lost two witnesses in the last three years; if this case is permitted to
drag on for another three years, how many more might no longer be available?

Doesn't the court have a duty to show its concern for justice?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply