of may it please the court this case involves two young women morgan pierce and kirsten kirkpatrick they attended logan university started in two thousand and fifteen both women at three years prior dreamed of becoming chiropractors in fact in the case of miss pearson since she was a little child she had dreamed of the a chiropractor she and her grandparents drove by logan university and she told them this is where we want to this is where i want to go to school they were both straight a students and i both did what they had to do to get  rolled into one university and they began to realize their dreams of attending logan this case arises because those dreams became nightmares both students upon start at logan university learned a secret about lone universe and that was that in so many ways logan had a tremendous systemic problem with protecting or not protecting their young female students against predatory males and sexual discrimination was a problem that existed before problems arrived at logan and this was unfortunately a problem that persisted throughout their tenure there because of logan's failure to protect the palance all both of them alternately withdrew from logan they lost out on the educational opportunity to attend the chiropractic college of their dreams due to logan's failure to protect them to make a long detailed story short one which i will revisit as i can brought to the attention of the university and what the university do in responding to the first notice they received of this and would you put the time frame in in context when school started when there were incidents beg when there's a report from the school could be reasonably charged with notice yes school began in september two thousand and fifteen there about ms pearson was harassed for at least two months and then she first she first in report what had happened to her because she actually didn't know that she could and then secondly if she she was not aware of what to do in the case but complained and secondly there is plenty of evidence of the fact that she was told by her fellow students that complaining would make no difference that the school would protect or but alternately the behavior of the harasser got so bad that on december eighth she went missed pierson went and told a faculty member what had happened to her later on but what then began is the basis of at least the title nine claimed that the underlying the overall circumstances support negligence claims and promises liability claims before title nine claim the united states supreme court has made clear that title nine claim can be made when deliberate indifference is shown and deliberate indifference exists where the defendants response harassment or lack thereof is clearly unreadable light of the known circumstances didn't didn't she initially want to remain anonymous and then change her mind later on in the process yet she did and i mean is there what is it that clearly unreasonable and institution doing what they can to respect anonymity doing what they can on the investigation while the complainant wants to remain anonymous and then when she changes her mind later on opening up a full learned best of my recollection is that's what logan did here just on its face doesn't appropriately but to to talk of directly about the anonymity the anonymity was later just use it as an excuse it was not an explanation for not starting initiate an investigation mr pierson actually i can investigate this i can talk to students and i can talk to students and say is there a classmate that you guys have noticed is receiving being harassed and miss pierson gave a list of multiple almost dozen students that she wanted to be approached in that manner it wasn't until january nineteenth which was least six months or six weeks after she had first asked that the investigation be initiated that she found out that the investigation had been undertaken at all the only thing the only thing the title might worry her done within that six week period was talk to the suspect and actually clue in the suspect that ms pearson was the one making claims against him and that that aspect right there is enough for a jury to find deliberate indifference the fact that she was exposed due to the way that this was investigated so that it is their case that holds that yes your hon and of itself that's that's not sufficient to say that as a matter of law school wasn't different what you can do is you can look at the details of how this investigation was handled so the anonymity is just the first part of the investigation  that was given as an excuse to not initiate this investigation for a full six weeks but then what we presented to the district court is literally alondra list of factors that establish that the school was deliberately indifferent as a matter of books in the district court were though i'm sorry ok so are the well to give you to give you one of the most glaring examples and this is a glaring example because the district court didn't even mention and that was the problem with th is reports of it in was the district court just overlooked facts and plaintiffs favor but one glaring factor was the fact that the student honor council that was to hear miss pearson's claim the leader of that unaccountable testified under oath that he did not know what the legal standard was east pacifically said we don't have any preponderance of the evidence standard or anything like that we just all kind of decided and that that didn't do you find that there was no evidence of harassment here i mean they didn't apply a legal standard but the finding was there's just no evidence here as i recall right and it was i believe that is what the student council found if they did find that way and that was that was the result of another very deeply flawed aspect of the investigation and that was that the title my coordinator when presenting the case to the student honor council wrote a report that contained facts the facts of quote facts that we learned after deposing her only included the facts that the suspect agreed to so a certain fact that mr pierson said that she had told the suspect no twelve to eighteen times told him to stay away from that was just completely excuse excluded from the facts and that's again that's just one of a laundry list of factors that show deliver indifference that fact was coupled with the fact of the title nine coordinator who did the investigation who also testified that her job is just to just to gather facts and then present them she sat in with the tsunami council while they made the decision  what we really think happened here was just a school in general trying to kind of push under the rug an incident so it didn't look bad for them overall and and you saw that in so many ways as this this thing unfolded and those are all outlined in our briefings one thing i did want to touch on quickly and i'll submit a rule twenty a j later on this is in march about mid march the tenth circuit decided the case students to undergo harassment or make them liable or vulnerable to it that was quoting the united states supreme court and what the tenth circuit then said in that case that that phrase make them liable or vulnerable to it applies and is satisfied when students have to withdraw from the university because they're not protected and that's exactly what happened in the case of miss pearson and in the case of ms kirkpatrick they both ultimately withdrew they knew they would be protected ayres and had already endured months of stalking and harassment she did everything she could and she was given this process that on its face did appear reasonable but then looking at the details was just drastically flawed drastically in fact so i can go through the list i mean you know the fact that logan initiate the investigation on december eighth  that was just a nominal quote unquote initiate the investigation they actually did nothing as i told you guys in till january nineteenth and even after january one thousand nine hundred still did nothing mr pierson had approached them all the me to campus police were the well known force so that's that's another issue and that goes into the negligence and premises liability claims and the issue with that is that the campus security was drastically means this is a large college campus and there was one security guard working at all times one and he testified that it would have taken him at least ten minutes to cover campus in case of any sort of emergency or in the case of a student reported it to law enforcement well it was it was reported yes it was a campus security knew about it but campus security was just limited in what they could do because it's it was totally insufficient i mean she couldn't even ask for like when was  at the time you're talking about in december yes you could remember when we deposed him exactly when he had been informed but he assumed that it was early on and you know he wasn't given instructions to protect or is it was just given instructions that this is going on and he was made aware but as he testified there was basically not much you could do i mean he he was one person working by himself would take ten minutes is one area the campus to another one thing i'd like to talk about and  i'm not eating into my rebuttal time you are ok i am so unless you guys have any other questions i'm going to say good morning your honour's may please the court based on the record before it the district court found that logan university was not deliberately indifferent to miss pearson's complaint of student on student khorassan under title nine there is no specific protocol an educational institution must follow when responding to a complaint of student on student harassment rather title nine provides an educational institution flexibility to students she made a complaint of harassment by another student the associate dean of students asked her to document her complaint in britain for the very next day the title nine quarter made met with her and interviewed her as to what her allegations were that she was nine corden eight are expected to read receive that risk for report excuse me just a few days later however a few days later miss pearson wrote an email to the title nine hundred metre asking her for more time to write that report eventually when miss pearson wrote that report on december twenty first the school had a heart already gone on winter break it was just a couple days before christmas and the students were on campus anymore and the title nine coordinator advised miss pearson that the delay in getting her that written report would cause her not be able to interview any of the witnesses or the alleged harasser till he returned to campus the day classes resumed on january fifth and twenty sixteen the title nine pork meter contacted the alleged harasser and met with him she then met with him state i think that it's certainly possible that there could have been i guess vague questions as to whether or not in the entirety of the preceding semester the the students had seen any harassing behavior but to focus in on the alleged harasser or to a then a fine this pearson would have been to disclose in break her request for anonymity when she lifted her request on february third two thousand and sixteen that very day the title nine coordinator sent out e mails to perspective witnesses and over the course of the next four weeks the title nine coordinator interviewed fifteen other witnesses including the alleged harasser again in which she disclosed who the complainant was in specifically asked him whether or not he had done any of the things that she complained of within that four week period in title nine courtier also assembled the student honor council the miss pearson was permitted every opportunity to to respond to the any of the fifty witnesses and corroborate the allegations of harassing card not specific to miss pearson your honor none of them saw any direct harassing conduct or stalking part of the allegation was that she received threatening text messages but miss pearson herself could not produce those at any point during the investigation so if you look at the timeline and what you ask your honor what did the university respond at first they respected her request for anonymity and as soon as that was lifted they conducted a thorough investigation and that in title nine doesn't require any specific protocol as i was mentioning at the beginning of this argument but what it says is that it only imposes liability on an educational institution where its response to a complaint off student on student harassment is clearly unreasonable a complainants dissatisfaction with the outcome of an educational institution decision is not grounds for title nine liability now there are three reasons we would ask that this court affirmed the district court's order an opinion judgment excuse me in favor of loading university the first is that there was no evidence which demonstrated logan university was deliberately indifferent to known acts of harassment second the district court proper the rule relied on the undisputed material facts of record and third the appellant's failed to establish that logan university had a duty arising under special circumstances to ensure appellants safety now at some point i think logan instructed in the us the student who lives to harass or not to have continuity they did your honor when did that appear after on february third after ms pearson asked for her at allowed logan university to reveal her name as part of the complaint at that point the title nine coordinator met again with the alleged harasser the title one quarter nater first barred him from access to the library where mr pearson said that some of the stalking had occurred he was to have no contact with miss pearson and he was to avoid all undergraduate classrooms unless he was attending that class during the pendency of the investigation and that was only lifted until the student honor council met and decided on march eleventh that they are alleged harasser was not responsible pearson there was no other reports of any problems by her and after rendered its decision on march eleventh despite finding the alleged harasser not responsible he was still instructed to have no contact with miss pearson going forward and again that brings me back to my first point which is to avoid the libert indifference liability a higher institution must merely respond to a known peer harassment in a manner that is not clearly unreasonable th would be found liable in damages for another individual's independent actions as to post to its own official decision now logan university's response to miss pearson's complaint stands in stark contrast to the facts in this court's decision  while the university an os stranger passed the responsibility to conduct an investigation and render a decision on to a national fraternity organisation here logan university's title nine coordinator took substantial steps in response to miss pearson's complaint the undisputed material facts in this case show that miss pearson was immediately referred to the title nine coordinator and they met on the very next day the title nine quarter meter thoroughly investigated miss pearson's complaint interview numerous witnesses and authored a comprehensive report as to what steps she took in response to that complaint after that the new the title nine quarter nater also met with miss pearson a number of times to update her on the progress of that investigation now in a strand or despite failing to conduct an investigation this court affirmed summary judgment in favor of that university because its conduct in referring the investigation to a national fraternity was not clearly a reasonable here logan university's response to miss pearson went above them beyond that of the university in austria under thus the district court's order in judgment in favor of logan university was consistent with a this court's precedent second the district court properly relied on the material facts of records before and after more than a year of discovery which included extensive document discovery in iraq the tories requests for the record however none of the purported facts contained in those later filed affidavits contradicted or even denied the material facts of this case and the timeline we discussed here on council would you describe the the order coun administrators in employees that received title nine training in that are qualified by the university in their opinion to hear title complaints of the pool of candidates when miss pearson made a complaint and after the title nine coordinator in this case had written her report she sent an e mail out to that pool of candidates asking if five of them were available to sit on the honor council to honor council members are faculty and staff they are they're not fellow students i know the name student honor council can be confusing but they are they are employees of the university whether their faculty members who teach where they have they are staff members in administrative positions or other administrators at the university that have received title nine training required and how universities were to respond in specific instances of receiving a title one complaint it wasn't always uniform there was a number of different programs and every year there was an annual kind of reminder just as we have to do protocol says that as a honor council member you must do a b and c but as part of the training that they receive it is on how to hear and decide title nine complaints so describe the the interviews she provided that report to miss pearson who was given an opportunity to have a written response she also provided that report to the alleged harasser who also had an opportunity to provide a written response to that report all of those documents were provided to the honor council first the honor council on march eighth two thousand and sixteen met with miss pearson and her mother who accompany her to the hearing and gave her basically said our time whatever time you need to walk us through what happened we're here to listen tell us what happened we'll give you every opportunity to raise any points you want two days later on march tenth they did the same thing with the alleged harasser we these were the allegations made against you how do you respond and they did the same process the next day they convened after they had an opportunity to meet and speak with and discuss the allegations that were made and made a unanimous decision that the alleged harasser was not responsible and that was the process they followed that decision was then communicated by the title nine coordinator to miss pearson and the alleged harasser that they listened to witnesses other than the the of the only tools they considered that there was summaries that were part of the title they do not have any live witnesses to answer your question are but there were summaries of the witness interviews that were conducted by the title nine quarter nater that were part of her report so they had a summary of all of the witnesses and what was disclosed to the title nine por objecting to see any of those yes as part of pearson's written response she did respond to the statements that were made by the witnesses that were interviewed of the title nine courtier but directly was there any type of cross examination as part of the hearing no not at the end to speak that ok at least as an opportunity in paper to yes that yes she did respond to all of the that in the way the report was written is it had you know this is the process i followed here on my witness summar everything that i've learned through the investigation that was provided to miss pearson and the alleged harasser and they both provided written responses to that report i see i'm running out of time if you have no other questions your honor conclude for the foregoing reasons i so and listen to counsel and preparing rebuttal just about every single fact that he presented to you i have a rebutting back and that's the problem with with this case and how it was decided in s judgment is that these are all factual matters for instance and you can talk about student honor council and my co counsel can say that there was a process and there was a procedure and there was training but when we  deposed the leader of the student council who was actually just an administrator at school he said that he hadn't received any special training and he testified that they never applied a standard they didn't even know if there was a standard and  said miss pearson was given an opportunity to reply and rebut the facts in the report she was but then she got into the student council meeting and she learned that they had apparently not even seen it and then we talk about a report that was put together and live witnesses didn't come in they were allowed they were only shown a report that the investigator put together we've already talked about the report the district court certain basically ignored the fact that that report was so biased  sided that it was almost worthless in and the woman to put it together even testified that a fact was only submitted to that student on a council as a fact if the suspect also agreed with it so what this comes down to is is a tremendous amount of disputed facts any one of which there's a probably ten different factors any one of which could establish deliberate difference and any one of which could also establish a increased through february it got worse there was an incident we mention it specifically where the suspect at this time knew that it was her complaining held the door shut while she was trying to go into the class this was after the  yes continued all the way throughout she ultimately withdrew just because she was so scared even being on campus that did not remit at all i see that i'm out of time i guess just the last thing i'll say is you know  ultimately as i have been repeating this is not a summary judgment case there are just way too many disputed issues of fact and we certainly have provided the evidence there's been a lot of that in this this is a case that should be reversed you should be sent