IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA; UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS; JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR., JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, ROGER AIKEN, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR. RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W. G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, HARI H. MATH, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR., J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK III, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY, as members of the Board of Governors in their official capacities; THOMAS W. ROSS, President of the University of North Carolina in his Official Capacity; UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL; CAROL L. FOLT, Chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in her Official Capacity; UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF TRUSTEES; W. LOWRY CAUDILL, ALSTON GARDNER, SALLIE SHUPING-RUSSELL, JEFFERSON W. BROWN, PHILLIP L. CLAY, HAYWOOD D. COCHRANE, DONALD WILLIAMS CURTIS, CHARLES G. DUCKETT, PETER T. GRAUER, KELLY MATTHEWS HOPKINS, STEVEN LERNER, DWIGHT D. STONE, ANDREW HENRY POWELL, as members of the Board of Trustees in their Official Capacity; JAMES W. DEAN JR., Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost in his Official Capacity; STEPHEN M. FARMER, Vice Provost, Enrollment, and Undergraduate Admissions in his Official Capacity,
Defendants.

Case No. _____
COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. brings this action to obtain, among other relief, a declaratory judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that Defendants have employed and are employing racially and ethnically discriminatory policies and procedures in administering the undergraduate admissions program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (“UNC-Chapel Hill”) in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. (“Title VI”). UNC-Chapel Hill’s undergraduate admissions policies and procedures have injured and continue to injure Plaintiff’s members by intentionally and unconstitutionally discriminating against them on the basis of their race and ethnicity. I. INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action brought under the Fourteenth Amendment and federal civil rights laws to prohibit UNC-Chapel Hill from engaging in intentional discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity. “Classifications of citizens solely on the basis of race are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality. They threaten to stigmatize individuals by reason of their membership in a racial group and to incite racial hostility.” Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 643 (1993) (citations and quotations omitted). As a consequence, racial classifications are highly disfavored and have been permitted only when there is a compelling government interest that cannot be met through raceneutral means. In the educational setting, “diversity” is the only interest the Supreme
2

Court has found compelling. Even then, the Supreme Court has mandated strict judicial scrutiny to ensure that an academic institution is actually pursuing that interest and that it is absolutely necessary to employ racial preferences in order to achieve a diverse student body.
2. Yet the Supreme Court has always had misgivings about its decision to permit any use of racial preferences in university admissions. See City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 518 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). The Supreme Court was nevertheless convinced to permit racial preferences in pursuit of diversity for two reasons. First, based mainly on an amicus brief that Harvard submitted, the Supreme Court was led to believe that schools only would “take account of race as one, nonpredominant factor in a system designed to consider each applicant as an individual.” Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 387 (2003) (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (citing Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 289-91 (1978)). Second, the Supreme Court believed that the “strict scrutiny standard [would] operate in a manner generally consistent with the imperative of race neutrality, because it forbids the use even of narrowly drawn racial classifications except as a last resort.” Croson, 488 U.S. at 519 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).
3. The Supreme Court was misled. No college or university, including UNC-Chapel Hill or Harvard itself, merely uses race contextually to fill the last few seats in the entering freshman class. Indeed, UNC-Chapel Hill adamantly denies that it uses race in this manner. UNC-Chapel Hill, like all other colleges and universities,
3

labels every applicant by race on the claim that it is pursuing the so-called “critical mass” diversity objective. That creates two problems for UNC-Chapel Hill. First, by failing to implement the “Harvard Plan” rationale that led to the permissibility of racial admissions preferences, UNC-Chapel Hill has deprived the Court of any continuing “authority to approve the use of race in pursuit of student diversity.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 394 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). Second, UNC-Chapel Hill’s claimed interest—critical mass—never should have been endorsed and should be outlawed once and for all. “[T]he concept of critical mass is a delusion used … to mask [an] attempt to make race an automatic factor in most instances and to achieve numerical goals indistinguishable from quotas.” Id. at 389.
4. Worse still, UNC-Chapel Hill is not even pursuing its claimed “critical mass” interest. Rather, even under governing precedent, UNC-Chapel Hill is violating the Fourteenth Amendment and federal civil rights laws for at least two reasons. First, UNC-Chapel Hill is not using race merely as a “plus factor” in admissions decisions. Rather, UNC-Chapel Hill’s racial preference for each underrepresented minority student (which equates to a penalty imposed upon white and Asian-American applicants) is so large that race becomes the “defining feature of his or her application.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 337. Only using race or ethnicity as a dominant factor in admissions decisions could, for example, account for the disparate treatment of high-achieving Asian-American and white applicants and underrepresented minority applicants with inferior academic credentials. UNCChapel Hill’s admissions decisions simply are not explainable on grounds other than
4

race. High-achieving Asian-American and white applicants are as broadly diverse and eclectic in their abilities and interests as any other group seeking admission to UNC-Chapel Hill. They compete in interscholastic sports, are members of the school band, work part-time jobs after school, travel, and engage in volunteer work just like everyone else. It is not a lack of non-academic achievement that is keeping them from securing admission. It is UNC-Chapel Hill’s dominant use of racial preferences to their detriment.
5. Second, UNC-Chapel Hill is using race in admissions decisions when race-neutral alternatives can achieve diversity. As other elite universities have shown, increased utilization of non-race-based criteria, such as socioeconomic preferences, can promote diversity about as well as racial preferences. This approach is particularly effective when combined with increased use of financial aid, scholarships, and recruitment to attract and enroll minority applicants and the elimination of admissions policies and practices, such as legacy preferences and early admission, which operate to the disadvantage of minority applicants. Further, eliminating racial preferences at UNC-Chapel Hill will alleviate the substantial harm these discriminatory policies cause to those minority applicants who receive such admissions preferences, the North Carolina community, and society as a whole. Racial preferences are a dangerous tool and may only be used as a last resort. There is now overwhelming evidence that race-neutral alternatives render reliance on racial preferences unnecessary.
5

6. UNC-Chapel Hill’s refusal to avail itself of race-neutral alternatives is especially troubling given that it knows at least one form of socioeconomic preference would be workable. UNC-Chapel Hill conducted its own study to determine whether granting automatic admission to North Carolina students in the top ten percent of their high school class would work about as well as racial preferences in achieving diversity. The study showed that a percentage plan would in fact work better than racial preferences in achieving diversity in that such a plan would boost minority enrollment. The pretextual reasons UNC-Chapel Hill gave for deeming this alternative unworkable, such as a trivial decrease in average SAT scores, will never survive strict judicial scrutiny given how disfavored the use of race is under the Fourteenth Amendment. The fact that it requires a lawsuit to make UNC-Chapel Hill install a race-neutral alternative that it already knows will increase diversity on its campus is discouraging. It was UNC-Chapel Hill’s responsibility to take full advantage of this alternative on its own accord, not to stubbornly resist abandoning racial preferences until a federal court orders it to do so.
7. Accordingly, there is no doubt that UNC-Chapel Hill is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and federal civil rights laws. The only question is the proper judicial response. Given what is occurring at UNC-Chapel Hill and other schools, the proper response is the outright prohibition of racial preferences in university admissions—period. Allowing this issue to be litigated in case after case will only “perpetuate the hostilities that proper consideration of race is designed to avoid.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 394 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). UNC-Chapel Hill and
6

other academic institutions cannot and should not be trusted with the awesome and historically dangerous tool of racial classification. As in the past, they will use any leeway the Supreme Court grants them to use racial preferences in college admissions—under whatever rubric—to engage in racial stereotyping and other forms of discrimination to advance their social-engineering agenda. Strict scrutiny has proven to be no match for concerted discrimination hidden behind the veil of “holistic” admissions. There may be times when social problems can be solved democratically. But massive resistance to racial equality is not one of them. See Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of Topeka, Kan., 349 U.S. 294 (1955). “The moral imperative of racial neutrality is the driving force of the Equal Protection Clause …. Structural protections may be necessities if moral imperatives are to be obeyed.” Croson, 488 U.S. at 518 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. This action arises under section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and under federal civil rights statutes 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 2000d et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.
9. Venue is proper in the Middle District of North Carolina under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the events giving rise to the claims detailed herein occurred in the Middle District of North Carolina.
7

III. THE PARTIES A. Plaintiff 10. Plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (“SFFA”) is an Internal
Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) organization formed for the purpose of defending human and civil rights secured by law, including the right of individuals to equal protection under the law, through litigation and any other lawful means. More specifically, SFFA seeks to promote and protect the right of the public to be free from discrimination on the basis of race in higher education admissions.
11. SFFA is a coalition of prospective applicants and applicants to higher education institutions who were denied admission to higher education institutions, their parents, and other individuals who support the organization’s purpose and mission of eliminating racial discrimination in higher education admissions. SFFA has members throughout the country.
12. Edward Blum is the President of SFFA. See Exhibit A, Declaration of Edward Blum (“Blum Dec.”) ¶ 2.
13. SFFA has at least one member (“Applicant”) who applied for and was denied admission to UNC-Chapel Hill’s 2014 entering class. Blum Dec. ¶ 4.
14. Applicant is white. Blum Dec. ¶ 5. 15. Applicant had a weighted GPA of 4.4839 at a public high school that U.S. News and World Report ranks as one of the top five high schools in North Carolina and in the top 1 percent of all high schools nationwide. Blum Dec. ¶ 6.
8

16. Applicant achieved a score of 2180 on the SAT I (800 Reading (Perfect) + 710 Math + 670 Writing). Applicant achieved a perfect score of 800 for SAT II Physics and a perfect score of 800 for SAT II Math. Applicant had a composite ACT score of 32. Blum Dec. ¶ 7.
17. Applicant completed five Advanced Placement (“AP”) courses, scoring a perfect “5” on all but one AP exam and scoring a “4” on the other. Applicant was named an AP Scholar of Distinction. Blum Dec. ¶ 8.
18. While in high school, Applicant participated in numerous extracurricular and volunteer activities. Among other things, Applicant was a member of the varsity cross country team, a teaching associate for students in Latin II, completed a collegiate computer programming course, and held a part-time job. Blum Dec. ¶ 9.
19. Applicant was denied the opportunity to compete for admission to UNC-Chapel Hill on equal footing with other applicants on the basis of race or ethnicity due to UNC-Chapel Hill’s discriminatory admissions policies. Blum Dec. ¶ 10.
20. Applicant was accepted to and has enrolled at another university in North Carolina. Applicant is ready, able, and intends to seek to transfer to the UNCChapel Hill when it stops discriminating against applicants on the basis of race and ethnicity in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and federal civil rights laws. Blum Dec. ¶ 11.
9

21. SFFA has members who are currently in high school and intend to apply for admission to UNC-Chapel Hill (“Future Applicants”). Blum Dec. ¶ 12.
22. Future Applicants will be denied the opportunity to compete for admission to UNC-Chapel Hill on equal footing with other applicants on the basis of race or ethnicity due to UNC-Chapel Hill’s discriminatory admissions policies. As a result, Future Applicants may be denied admission to UNC-Chapel Hill because of these discriminatory policies. Blum Dec. ¶ 13.
23. SFFA has members whose children intend to apply for admission to UNC-Chapel Hill (“Parents”). Blum Dec. ¶ 14.
24. Parents’ children will be denied the opportunity to compete for admission to UNC-Chapel Hill on equal footing with other applicants on the basis of race or ethnicity due to UNC-Chapel Hill’s discriminatory admissions policies. As a result, Parents’ children may be denied admission to UNC-Chapel Hill because of these discriminatory policies. Blum Dec. ¶ 15.
B. Defendants 25. The University of North Carolina is a public, multi-campus university system authorized and governed by Article 9, Section 8 of the North Carolina Constitution and Chapter 116 of the North Carolina Revised Statutes. It is composed of the following constituent institutions: Appalachian State University, East Carolina University, Elizabeth City State University, Fayetteville State University, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, North Carolina Central University, North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics, North Carolina State
10

University at Raleigh, The University of North Carolina at Asheville, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, The University of North Carolina at Pembroke, The University of North Carolina at Wilmington, University of North Carolina School of the Arts, Western Carolina University, and Winston-Salem State University.
26. The University of North Carolina is funded by the State of North Carolina and the Federal Government. As a recipient of direct and indirect financial assistance from the Federal Government, the University of North Carolina, as well as all of its programs and activities, including those of UNC-Chapel Hill, are subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et. seq.
27. The University of North Carolina Board of Governors is the policymaking body charged with the general determination, control, supervision, management, and governance of all affairs of the University of North Carolina’s constituent institutions, including UNC-Chapel Hill. The Board of Governors elects the President of the University of North Carolina, who administers the university.
28. John C. Fennebresque, W. Louis Bissette, Jr., Joan Templeton Perry, M.D., Roger Aiken, Hannah D. Gage, Ann B. Goodnight, H. Frank Grainger, Peter D. Hans, Thomas J. Harrelson, Henry W. Hinton, James L. Holmes, Jr., Rodney E. Hood, W. Marty Kotis III, G. Leroy Lail, Scott Lampe, Steven B. Long, Joan G. MacNeill, Mary Ann Maxwell, W. Edwin McMahan, W. G. Champion Mitchell, Hari H. Nath, Anna Spangler Nelson, Alex Parker, R. Doyle Parrish, Therence O. Pickett,
11

David M. Powers, Robert S. Rippy, Harry Leo Smith, Jr., J. Craig Souza, George A. Sywassink, Richard F. Taylor, Raiford Trask III, Phillip D. Walker, and Laura I. Wiley are the voting members of the University of North Carolina Board of Governors. Each member is elected by the North Carolina General Assembly for a four-year term. The members of the Board of Governors are sued in their official capacity.
29. Thomas W. Ross is the President of the University of North Carolina. The President is the chief administrative and executive officer of the University of North Carolina. The President has complete authority to manage the affairs and execute the policies of the University of North Carolina and its constituent institutions, subject to the direction and control of the Board of Governors and the provisions of The Code of the Board of Governors of The University of North Carolina. He is sued in his official capacity.
30. UNC-Chapel Hill is a public research university located in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. UNC-Chapel Hill is a constituent institution of the University of North Carolina system.
31. Carol L. Folt is the Chancellor of UNC-Chapel Hill. The Chancellor exercises complete executive authority over UNC-Chapel Hill, subject to the direction of the President. The Chancellor is responsible for carrying out policies of the Board of Governors and of the Board of Trustees of UNC-Chapel Hill. She is sued in her official capacity.
12

32. The UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees is charged with promoting the sound development of its institution within the functions prescribed for it and serving as advisor to the Board of Governors and to the Chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The Board of Trustees also has other powers and duties that are defined and delegated by the Board of Governors.
33. W. Lowry Caudill, Alston Gardner, Sallie Shuping-Russell, Jefferson W. Brown, Phillip L. Clay, Haywood D. Cochrane, Donal Williams Curtis, Charles G. Duckett, Peter T. Grauer, Kelly Matthews Hopkins, Steven Lerner, Dwight D. Stone, and Andrew Henry Powell are members of the UNC-Chapel Hill Board of Trustees. They are sued in their official capacity.
34. James W. Dean Jr. is the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost at UNC-Chapel Hill. The Provost leads UNC-Chapel Hill in its academic planning and in the setting of academic values, policies, and practices. He is responsible for providing guidance to the dean of each school, is the Chair of the Deans’ Council, and is accountable for regularly evaluating the deans, vice provosts, and selected vice chancellors, as well as candidates for those positions. He is sued in his official capacity.
35. Stephen M. Farmer is the Vice Provost for Enrollment and Undergraduate Admissions at UNC-Chapel Hill. The Vice Provost directs the selection and recruitment of the undergraduate student body at UNC-Chapel Hill. He is sued in his official capacity.
13

IV. UNC-CHAPEL HILL’S UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS POLICIES. A. UNC-Chapel Hill’s Admissions Process 1. The Application 36. During an admissions cycle, the UNC-Chapel Hill Admissions
Committee reviews each applicant’s admissions materials. Those materials include: (1) the Common Application; (2) two essays; (3) official high school transcript; (4) official standardized test scores; (5) a counselor statement; and (6) one teacher recommendation.
37. UNC-Chapel Hill gathers information about the race and ethnicity of its applicants through numerous ways.
38. An applicant filling out a Common Application has the option of disclosing his or her racial identity.
39. The Common Application asks two questions to identify an applicant’s race and ethnicity: (1) “Are you Hispanic/Latino?” and (2) “Regardless of your answer to the prior question, please indicate how you identify yourself. (Check one or more and describe your background.) American Indian or Alaska Native (including all Original Peoples of the Americas); Asian (including Indian subcontinent and Philippines); Black or African American (including Africa and Caribbean); Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (Original People); or White (including Middle Eastern).”
40. The Common Application requires applicants to identify their parents’ first and last name, the parents’ former last names, and their country of birth.
14

41. UNC-Chapel Hill accepts transfer students who have been out of high school at least one year and have completed any college coursework. UNC-Chapel Hill evaluates applicants for transfer in the same purportedly “holistic” manner it evaluates all other applicants. UNC-Chapel Hill uses race or ethnicity as a factor in evaluating transfer applicants.
2. The Review Process 42. UNC-Chapel Hill has two application deadlines for admission to the entering class. The deadline for early admission is in October. The deadline for regular admission is in January. Early admission applicants are notified of UNCChapel Hill’s decision by the end of January. Applicants for regular admission are notified of UNC-Chapel Hill’s decision by the end of March. According to UNCChapel Hill, the evaluation process for both sets of candidates for admission is the same. 43. Each application is randomly assigned to an admissions officer who serves as the “first reader.” That officer reads the application and enters a recommended decision, which could be to admit, deny, defer, or waitlist the applicant. That first reader also enters comments in support of his or her recommended decision. 44. The application is then assigned to a “second reader” who repeats the process. If the two readers agree and either the applicant is a North Carolina resident or the applicant is from out of state and the recommendation is to deny the admission, the decision is entered as a tentative decision. If the two readers do not agree or if the applicant is from out of state and the recommendation is to admit, the application is
15

reviewed by the Admissions Director, the Admissions Deputy Director, or a subcommittee of admissions officers, and a tentative decision is then entered.
45. UNC-Chapel Hill claims to base its admissions decision on a “holistic” review of each application using more than 40 criteria, which are grouped broadly into eight categories: (a) academic performance (such as grade point average, rank in class, and trends in grades); (b) academic program (such as the rigor or courses taken); (c) standardized testing (including SAT scores); (d) extracurricular activity (such as work history and demonstrated leadership); (e) special talent (including talent in athletics and music); (f) essay (including persuasiveness, evidence of selfknowledge, and unique perspective); (g) background (including socio-economic status, legacy status, race, and national origin); and (h) personal (including curiosity, integrity, and history of overcoming obstacles).
46. UNC-Chapel Hill denies using race as a “tie breaker” to fill the final few places in the entering freshman class. UNC-Chapel Hill instead claims to use race to pursue the “critical mass” diversity interest.
47. After tentative decisions have been entered for all candidates, UNCChapel Hill uses a statistical model to predict the number of entering students based on the applications that have been tentatively marked for admission.
48. UNC-Chapel Hill then conducts what it terms an “end-of-season” review, which it refers to as the school group review or the SGR process. During the SGR process, a report is run showing every applicant from the same high school, with applicants ordered from highest to lowest grade point average. UNC-Chapel Hill
16

claims to use the SGR process for, among other reasons, “quality control” purposes and in order to align the predicted enrollment to the number of available spaces for the entering class.
49. The Admissions Director is aware of the projected racial composition of the tentatively admitted students during the SGR process. The reports used during the SGR process include information regarding each candidate’s race/ethnicity. Those reports, however, do not include information regarding non-race factors such as first generation college status or eligibility for a fee waiver.
50. After the SGR process is completed, applicants receive notification of acceptance, rejection, or placement on the waiting list. Those applicants who accept a position on the waiting list will be reconsidered for any spaces that are available after the enrollment deadline for admitted students. V. UNC-CHAPEL HILL IS NOT USING RACE MERELY AS A “PLUS”
FACTOR. 51. Although UNC-Chapel Hill claims to use an applicant’s race and ethnicity only as one of many factors within its “holistic” system, statistical and other evidence establishes that race is a dominant factor in admissions decisions to the detriment of white and Asian-American applicants. 52. During the admissions process, UNC-Chapel Hill admissions officers are aware of the race of every applicant for admissions and that information is included on the first page of each applicant’s admissions folder. Moreover, race is the only non-academic factor that is known about an applicant during the SGR process.
17

53. Table A shows admission rates, by race, for a portion of the overall range of academic indices generated by UNC in 2006.

Table A

Academic Index for All Admitted Students (2006)

Index Range

Admissions Rate for:

2.4-2.499

Black/African American 19.3%

White/Caucasians Asian Americans

3.8%

0.9%

2.5-2.599

30.5%

3.2%

0.9%

2.6-2.699

44.6%

3.7%

2.5%

2.7-2.799

59.2%

12.8%

8.5%

2.8-2.899

65.0%

28.1%

25.6%

2.9-2.999

89.9%

37.2%

26.4%

3.0-3.099

89.3%

44.3%

30.7%

3.1-3.199

100.0%

42.2%

43.1%

3.2-3.299

98.0%

47.5%

55.4%

54. These statistics show that UNC-Chapel Hill does not use race simply as a “plus” factor. For African-American applicants with an academic index above 3.1, race is a dispositive factor essentially guaranteeing admission. For Asian-American applicants with an academic index below 2.6, on the other hand, race is a dispositive factor virtually guaranteeing rejection.

18

55. Table B shows the average high-school GPA and SAT scores by racial category for students admitted to UNC-Chapel Hill in 2012.

Table B Average GPA and SAT for All Admitted Students (2012)

Admitted

GPA

SAT

American Indian or

103

Alaska Native

4.38

1300

African American

618

4.32

1229

Asian/Asian American

1018

4.63

1431

Hispanic

415

4.51

1319

Pacific Islander

6

4.51

1393

White

3616

4.56

1360

Not Reporting

123

4.46

1344

56. These statistics confirm that UNC-Chapel Hill continues to use race as far more than a “plus” factor in admissions. In particular, the statistics show a massive academic achievement gap between non-preferred admitted students and underrepresented minorities. The average high-school GPA and SAT scores for nonpreferred students (Asian American + white) are 4.57 and 1375. The average high school GPA and SAT scores for underrepresented minorities (African American + Hispanic + American Indian/Alaska Native) are 4.40 and 1269.
57. The academic achievement differences are even greater between specific racial groups. For example, there is over a 200-point SAT gap and a 0.31

19

high-school GPA gap between Asian Americans and African Americans admitted to UNC-Chapel Hill.
58. UNC-Chapel Hill’s admissions decisions cannot be attributed to underrepresented minorities having better non-racial, non-academic qualifications than other students. See, e.g., Esteben Aucejo, Hanming Fang, and Ken Spenner, “Does Affirmative Action Lead to Mismatch? A New Test and Evidence,” 2 Quantitative Economics 303 (2011). That study found no racial advantage for underrepresented minority applicants in levels of personal achievement.
59. Studies also have shown that high achieving Asian-American students are equally, if not more, qualified than other racial groups with regard to nonacademic criteria. At the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), over several years, undergraduate admissions readers assigned each applicant three types of scores: “academic achievement” (principally high school grades, AP courses, and standardized test scores); “life challenges” (mainly socioeconomic background); and “personal achievement” (such as leadership, musical ability, and community service). These three scores jointly determined virtually all admissions decisions. See Peter Arcidiacono, Thomas Espenshade, Stacy Hawkins, and Richard Sander, A Conversation on the Nature, Effects, and Future of Affirmative Action in Higher Education Admissions, Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law (Fall 2014).
60. The data cover over 100,000 undergraduate applicants to UCLA over three years and show absolutely no correlation between race and “personal achievement.” Rather, the data show that the only strong predictor of personal-
20

achievement scores is academic achievement; applicants with high test scores and grades tended to have personal achievement scores that were about one standard deviation higher than applicants with low test scores and grades.
61. There is no evidence that Asian Americans applying to UCLA have personal achievement credentials that Asian Americans applying to UNC-Chapel Hill uniformly lack. Rather, all available evidence points in the opposite direction.
62. Moreover, notwithstanding UNC-Chapel Hill’s public relations emphasis on non-academic factors in reviewing applications, academic performance (except when it comes to underrepresented minorities) is the principal criteria for admission.
63. Academic analyses of dozens of application processes at colleges and law schools around the country demonstrate that highly competitive schools, such as UNC-Chapel Hill, give far more weight to academic achievement and preparation than to other types of accomplishment and activity (with the exception of racial preferences). See Richard Sander, Why Strict Scrutiny Requires Transparency: The Practical Effects of Bakke, Gratz, and Grutter (2011). In general, academic factors alone explain about 80 percent of admissions decisions at selective schools.
64. Accordingly, UNC-Chapel Hill is not using race merely as a “plus” factor in admissions decisions. UNC-Chapel Hill’s admissions decisions are attributable to a sizable racial preference for underrepresented minorities.
21

VI. UNC-CHAPEL HILL HAS AVAILABLE RACE-NEUTRAL ALTERNATIVES THAT CAN ACHIEVE STUDENT BODY DIVERSITY. 65. UNC-Chapel Hill has a host of race-neutral alternatives that can achieve
student body diversity without the use of racial classifications, including but not limited to: (a) increased utilization of non-race-based preferences; (b) increased use of financial aid, scholarships, and recruitment to attract and enroll minority applicants; and (c) elimination of admissions policies and practices that operate to the disadvantage of minority applicants. Furthermore, eliminating racial preferences at UNC-Chapel will alleviate the substantial harm these discriminatory policies cause to those minority applicants who receive such admissions preference, the North Carolina community, and society as a whole.
A. UNC-Chapel Hill Can Achieve Student Body Diversity Without Using Race As A Factor In Admissions Decisions By Making Greater Use Of Non-Racial Preferences.
66. Colleges and universities that have eliminated race-based admissions have maintained or increased their student body diversity by placing greater emphasis on socioeconomic factors, which often strongly correlate with an applicant’s race but are not exclusively reserved for applicants of a particular race or ethnicity. Using socioeconomic preferences thus increases racial diversity and achieves the broader diversity that UNC-Chapel Hill claims to seek by opening the door of opportunity for poor students of all races.
67. In a recent study of ten leading public universities that ended race-based preferences, researchers found that seven of these schools maintained or increased
22

their enrollment of African-American and Hispanic students by adopting strategies that target socioeconomic inequality. See Halley Potter, Transitioning to RaceNeutral Admissions: An Overview of Experiences in States Where Affirmative Action Has Been Banned, The Future of Affirmative Action (2014).
68. For example, the University of Colorado has devised an admissions formula that gives a significant preference to students from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. This refined formula takes into consideration numerous socioeconomic factors, including single-parent status, parents’ education level, family income, native language, the number of dependents in the family, whether the applicant attended a rural high school, the percentage of students from the applicant’s high school eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, the school-wide student-toteacher ratio, and the size of the twelfth-grade class.
69. Under this admissions program, the University of Colorado found not only that the socioeconomic diversity of its incoming class increased substantially, but that racial and ethnic diversity increased as well. African-American and Hispanic acceptance rates to the University of Colorado increased from 56 percent under racebased admissions to 65 percent under class-based admissions. See Matthew N. Gaertner, Advancing College Access with Class-Based Affirmative Action, The Future of Affirmative Action (2014).
70. Recently, a national simulation was conducted to determine whether the use of socioeconomic preferences could achieve student body diversity without the use of racial preferences at elite universities. See Anthony P. Carnevale, Stephen J.
23

Rose, Jeff Strohl, Achieving Racial and Economic Diversity with Race-Blind Admissions Policy, The Future of Affirmative Action (2014). The study simulated various admissions models at the top-rated 193 colleges and universities “because the dialogue about affirmative action often implies that it is access to these schools and the opportunities they provide in business, social and career advancement that truly matters.” The study examined, among other things, the effect of substituting socioeconomic preference for race-based preferences at America’s elite college and universities using test scores and high-school grades as measures of merit.
71. The national simulation ultimately found that “it is possible to achieve both racial and economic diversity in selective colleges without using race per se as an admissions criterion” and, importantly, that it could be achieved consistent with the understanding “that affirmative action models ought to promote racial diversity as an educational benefit instead of promoting racial diversity for its own sake.”
72. Another study found that increased focus on parental education and wealth—as opposed to income—as a measure of socioeconomic status also can help achieve student body diversity without the use of racial preferences. See Dalton Conley, The Why, What, and How of Class-Based Admissions Policy, The Future of Affirmative Action (2014). The study found that “the most important factor in predicting individual academic success is the education of a parent” and the “economic factor” that mattered most was “parental net worth (that is, wealth) and not income.” Indeed, “wealth conceptually captures the legacy of historical inequalities of opportunity better than aspects of class that cannot be literally transferred directly
24

from one generation to the next by signing a check (or a deed or a will).” While African Americans make on the order of 60 to 70 percent of what whites make in income, the median African American family wealth is just 10 percent of white family wealth.
73. Affording a community-based preference is another means of achieving student body diversity by admitting more socioeconomically disadvantaged students. See Sheryll Cashin, Place not Race: A New Vision of Opportunity in America (2014). African Americans and Hispanics are much more likely to live in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty than whites. See John R. Logan, Separate and Unequal: The Neighborhood Gap for Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians in Metropolitan America (2011), Table 2.
74. Universities have used this community-based homogeneity to promote racial and ethnic diversity through race-neutral means. For example, Texas, California, and Florida have adopted “percent plans” that guarantee admission to state universities for top graduates (based on grades) from each high school in the state. These percentage plans have been successful in promoting community, socioeconomic, and racial diversity.
75. In addition to statewide percentage plans, a university can achieve student body diversity by granting a preference within their existing admissions framework utilizing other community-based metrics, such as an applicant’s zip code. See Danielle Allen, Talent is Everywhere: Using Zip Codes and Merit to Enhance Diversity, The Future of Affirmative Action (2014).
25

76. Studies show that students admitted based on socioeconomic as opposed to racial criteria regularly outperform all other admitted students. These students drop out at lower rates, graduate in shorter time periods, and receive better grades.
77. UNC-Chapel Hill has conducted studies proving that it can use raceneutral alternatives to achieve student body diversity without sacrificing its academic standards.
78. In 2012, after the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the UNC-Chapel Hill Admissions Office conducted a study to analyze the projected composition of its incoming class if it adopted an admissions plan similar to the one used by the University of Texas at Austin. Under Texas law, all students in the top ten percent of their class at high schools in Texas that comply with certain standards are granted automatic admission to any public state college, including the University of Texas at Austin.
79. UNC-Chapel Hill submitted the results of its study to the U.S. Department of Education as part of the agency’s investigation into UNC-Chapel Hill’s admissions practices and to the U.S. Supreme Court through its amicus brief in the Fisher case.
80. According to UNC-Chapel Hill, eliminating racial preferences and replacing them with a top-ten-percent plan similar to the University of Texas at Austin’s would increase the percentage of nonwhite and underrepresented students enrolling at UNC-Chapel Hill from 15 percent to 16 percent.
26

81. Adopting this plan also likely would increase the average high-school GPA of UNC-Chapel Hill’s admitted students because the proportion of the admitted pool coming from the top ten percent of high school classes would by definition increase.
82. In other words, UNC-Chapel Hill determined that it could adopt a raceneutral admissions policy that increases both the racial diversity of the student body and the likely average GPA of the entering freshman class.
83. Nevertheless, UNC-Chapel Hill informed the Department of Education and the Supreme Court that it would not implement this admissions plan because it would yield “a significantly less satisfactory admissions system for UNC in most respects.”
84. UNC-Chapel Hill gave three reasons for why the plan was unacceptable: (a) the average entering SATs of the incoming class would decline by 56 points, from 1317 to 1262; (b) predicted first-year GPA averages would drop by 0.10 points, from 3.26 to 3.16; and (c) applicants whose grades were not in the top ten percent of their class would see their chances of admission reduced from 31 percent (under the present system) to 10 percent (under a top-ten-percent plan).
85. None of these pretextual reasons UNC-Chapel Hill gave for retaining racial preferences instead of adopting this workable, race-neutral alternative can survive judicial review under strict scrutiny.
27

86. First, UNC-Chapel Hill is well aware that an average decline of 56 SAT points (from the 91st percentile to the 86th percentile) will have little to no effect on the academic quality of the student body.
87. In its response to the Department of Education, UNC-Chapel Hill sought to explain why admitted African Americans had a far lower average SAT score than admitted Asian-American students (1229 and 1431, respectively) by arguing that the 202-point gap was minimal and, in any event, irrelevant.
88. To begin, UNC-Chapel Hill claimed that any SAT gap less than 120 points was meaningless because this gap was within the test’s margin of error. UNCChapel Hill claimed that the “standard errors of difference (‘SED’) for the SAT is roughly 40 points on each section; this means that, for two scores on either section to represent what the College Board describes as ‘real’ differences in the attributes measure by that section, the two scores must be different by at least 60 points, or 1.5 times the SED.”
89. Thus, UNC-Chapel Hill explained, “a student who scores 620 on Critical Reading and 600 on Math [1220 total] displays no ‘real’ or measured difference from a student who scores 670 and 650, respectively [1320 total].”
90. While UNC-Chapel Hill acknowledged that “the differences in mean SAT scores between underrepresented students and Asian or white students are statistically significant” (as the gap was greater than 120 points), UNC-Chapel Hill contended that the SAT was a meaningless predictor of future success.
28

91. UNC-Chapel Hill argued that “[w]hatever the ‘real’ difference in SAT scores between underrepresented and other students, the significance of that difference is subject to question. If the SAT is a relatively crude predictor of academic performance in general, it is even less reliable at predicting the performance of underrepresented students in particular, even when the impact of socioeconomic status is controlled for.”
92. As an example, UNC-Chapel Hill argued that its “Covenant Scholars,” which are students who may receive significant financial aid if their parents’ adjusted gross income does not exceed 200 percent of federal poverty guidelines (e.g., $37,060 for a family of three), fully succeed at UNC despite having SAT scores 81 points lower than average.
93. According to UNC-Chapel Hill, Covenant Scholars “earned SAT scores that averaged 81 points below the class average of 1293,” but that “if past experience holds, more than 97 percent of these students will return for the second year at Carolina—a rate equal to that of their classmates with higher incomes and SAT scores.”
94. A 56-point decline in average SAT scores under a top-ten percent plan is especially modest in light of UNC-Chapel Hill’s belief that socioeconomically disadvantaged students may have more potential than economically privileged students with similar test scores. Because American high schools tend to be economically as well as racially stratified, a top-ten-percent plan in North Carolina is
29

likely to be accompanied by an increase in socioeconomic diversity at UNC-Chapel Hill.
95. Economic diversity increased, for example, after the adoption of UT Austin’s top 10 percent plan. In 2013, 21 percent of incoming students admitted through the Texas top 10 percent plan were from families making less than $40,000 compared with 6 percent of those admitted under discretionary admissions. See William Powers, The University of Texas at Austin: Report to the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives on the Implementation of SB 175, at 30 (2013).
96. In discussions with the Department of Education, UNC-Chapel Hill emphasized that “assessment of disadvantage must … inform the University’s interpretation of the candidate’s SAT scores and other academic indicators.” Given “the strong correlation between SAT scores and socioeconomic status,” UNC-Chapel Hill contended that, “schools, including [UNC-Chapel Hill], have chosen to view SAT scores in light of the student’s socioeconomic circumstances, as a way of tempering the test’s tendency to measure privilege rather than preparedness.”
97. More broadly, UNC-Chapel Hill stressed that “average [SAT] scores across groups, as well as the scores of individual students, should be interpreted with great caution, and always in conjunction with other indicators that speak to students’ academic preparation.” To that end, UNC-Chapel Hill repeatedly emphasized that “in evaluating candidates for admission, we do not seek to maximize the average SAT score.”
30

98. Given UNC-Chapel Hill’s position that a 100-point SAT gap was within the test’s margin of error and thus statistically insignificant, and that a 200-point gap should be “interpreted with great caution” since the SAT is only a “crude predictor of academic success,” it is disingenuous in the extreme for UNC-Chapel Hill to claim that it must use race in its admissions in order to prevent a 56-point decline in its average SAT score that would be caused through race-neutral admissions.
99. Second, UNC-Chapel Hill’s professed fear of a 0.10 drop in predicted first-year GPA is pretext for continued racial discrimination. Here too, UNC-Chapel Hill’s submission to the Department of Education belies its newfound concern on predicted first-year GPA.
100. Before the Department of Education, UNC-Chapel Hill stressed that “in evaluating candidates for admission, we do not seek to maximize ... the average eventual GPA of the entering class.”
101. In addition, in attempting to explain the difference in average highschool GPAs for admitted students (ranging from 4.31 for American Indians to 4.65 for whites) UNC-Chapel Hill argued that such differences were of “questionable statistical significance.” In particular, UNC-Chapel Hill argued that the 0.11 GPA difference between whites/Asians and African Americans/Hispanics/Native Americans was insignificant because a 0.11 GPA differential “is the equivalent of one letter-grade difference in each of two classes over the course of a four-year high school career.”
31

102. Moreover, UNC-Chapel Hill is aware that students coming from the top ten percent of their class do better than the rest of the student body. According to UNC-Chapel Hill, “by far the best predictor of eventual academic performance in college[] is high-school grade-point average (GPA).”
103. For example, of the 391 first year students who made the Dean’s List in the Spring of 2012, 79 percent (309 students) were in the top 10 percent of their high school classes. In addition, among the graduating seniors inducted into Phi Beta Kappa in the Fall of 2010, more than 85 percent were in the top 10 percent of their high school graduating classes.
104. Third, UNC-Chapel Hill’s concern with the decreased admissions chances of applicants with lower grades is simply the byproduct of an admissions process that places more emphasis on high-school GPA—which UNC claims is “by far the best predictor of eventual academic performance in college”—and less emphasis on SAT scores—which UNC dubs “one factor among many” and a “crude predictor of academic performance.” UNC-Chapel Hill does not have a compelling government interest in preferring applicants who do not finish in the top ten percent of their class for its own sake.
105. In addition to the top-ten-percent plan, UNC-Chapel Hill has other options available for maintaining or increasing diversity through race-neutral means, including prioritizing additional socioeconomic factors in the admissions process.
32

106. According to UNC-Chapel Hill’s submission to the Department of Education, its “applicant pool shows that a disproportionate share of disadvantaged applicants are also underrepresented applicants.”
107. UNC-Chapel Hill further noted: “Within the University’s applicant pool, underrepresented students are much more likely than Asian and white students to come from disadvantaged households and schools.”
108. For Fall 2006, underrepresented applicants were “2.3 times more likely than Asian and white applicants to live in households where neither parent held a college degree (32.3 percent vs. 13.8 percent); 12.2 times more likely to have been poor enough to qualify for a waiver of their admissions application fee (22.1 percent vs. 1.8 percent); 1.9 times more likely to live in a single-parent household (33.6 percent vs. 17.3 percent); and 5.0 times more likely to attend a high school where at least half of the students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch (18.1 percent vs. 3.6 percent).”
109. UNC-Chapel Hill further noted: “Overall, underrepresented applicants were 2.0 times more likely than their Asian and white counterparts to come from backgrounds with at least one of these characteristics (52.6 percent vs. 26.4 percent). The ratio was even higher for students with any two of these characteristics (4.2 times as likely, or 20.7 percent vs. 4.2 percent); for students with three or more characteristics, the ratio was higher still (12.2 times more likely, or 6.5 percent vs. 0.5 percent).”
33

110. In addition, UNC-Chapel Hill stated that its “Covenant Scholars” are “2.5 times more likely to be underrepresented than the class as a whole (47 percent vs. 19 percent) and are the poorest of the University’s new students.”
111. Given this strong correlation between socioeconomic status and race in UNC-Chapel Hill’s applicant pool, UNC-Chapel Hill could easily maintain or increase its racial diversity by emphasizing socioeconomic indicators instead of race.
112. Like the percentage plan described above, an admissions plan emphasizing additional socioeconomic factors would have no impact on academic quality of the student body.
113. For example, UNC-Chapel Hill prides itself on the academic success of its Covenant Scholars, who by definition come from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds: “The fact that Covenant Scholars are from lower-income backgrounds doesn’t get in the way of their academic success. Covenant Scholars do well at Carolina.”
114. According to UNC-Chapel Hill, more than 97 percent of Covenant Scholars “will return for the second year at Carolina—a rate equal to that of their classmates with higher incomes and SAT scores.” In addition, “Covenant Scholars are still enrolled in Year 4 at almost the same rate as all other students at the University,” and “the average grade point average for Scholars at graduation is almost the same as for all students.”
115. When UNC-Chapel Hill makes its admissions decisions, as reflected by the lack of socioeconomic diversity in the student body as compared to racial
34

diversity, it gives almost no weight to an applicant’s socioeconomic status, whether measured by income or by wealth, and/or community of origin.
116. Measured in terms of those students receiving federal Pell Grants, which are awarded to students coming from low-income families, UNC-Chapel Hill lags behind other schools. The percentage of students at UNC-Chapel Hill who receive Pell Grants in 2013 was only 20 percent. In comparison, universities that employ race-neutral admissions had far greater numbers of Pell Grant recipients, including the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) (35 percent), the University of California, Berkeley (33 percent), and the University of Florida (30 percent). 2014 National Universities Rankings – Social Mobility, Washington Monthly (2014). Nationally, 36 percent of college students receive Pell Grants. See College Board, Trends in Student Aid 2013. In a 2010 study of flagship universities, the Education Trust placed UNC-Chapel Hill in the bottom quartile for low-income student access. See Opportunity Adrift: Our Flagship Universities are Straying from Their Public Mission (2010), Figure 17.
117. By contrast, UNC-Chapel Hill places far greater weight on an applicant’s race—regardless of his or her socioeconomic status or the community of origin.
118. By increasing the weight given to an applicant’s socioeconomic status and/or community of origin, UNC-Chapel Hill can achieve student body diversity without resorting to the disfavored tool of racial preferences.
35

B. UNC-Chapel Hill Can Achieve Student Body Diversity Without Using Race As A Factor In Admissions Decisions By Making Greater Use Of Financial Aid And Scholarships To Attract Minority Candidates.
119. Relying on socioeconomic instead of racial preferences at the admissions stage is the first step. But UNC-Chapel Hill needs to ensure that those underprivileged minorities that benefit from socioeconomic preferences are in a position to accept the offer of admission and enroll at UNC-Chapel Hill. To that end, UNC-Chapel Hill can achieve student body diversity by increasing its use of financial aid and scholarships.
120. Colleges and universities that have eliminated racial preferences have maintained or increased student body diversity by offering more financial aid to socioeconomically disadvantaged students. For example, the University of California system, which does not use race-based preferences, covers tuition for students from families with incomes below $80,000. The University of California devotes one-third of tuition revenue to financial aid.
121. Yet in August 2014, the UNC Board of Governors instituted a cap that prevents UNC from devoting more than 15 percent of tuition revenue to financial aid.
122. Moreover, UNC-Chapel Hill could do much more to support socioeconomically disadvantaged students given its significant economic resources. UNC’s $2.38 billion endowment is the one of the largest in the nation; it exceeds the gross domestic product of Greenland and 36 other countries.
36

123. Yet the total cost of full-time attendance for undergraduates is estimated to be $24,120 for North Carolina residents and $50,938 for out-of-state residents.
124. UNC-Chapel Hill has the economic resources to increase its financial aid far beyond the 15 percent threshold. Doing so would make it possible for underprivileged minorities, especially those in the lower middle class, and those who may have slightly higher income levels but less wealth, admitted to UNC-Chapel Hill through the increased use of socioeconomic preferences (as opposed to the affluent minorities currently being admitted due to racial preferences) to be in a position to accept an offer of admission and enroll at UNC-Chapel Hill.
C. UNC-Chapel Hill Can Achieve Student Body Diversity Without Using Race As A Factor In Admissions Decisions Through Increased Recruitment And Other Steps Designed To Encourage More Qualified Minority Students To Apply For Admission.
125. UNC-Chapel Hill can achieve student body diversity by bringing more highly qualified, socioeconomically disadvantaged minorities into its applicant pool. Across the country, there are tens of thousands of socioeconomically disadvantaged, high-achieving minorities who fail to apply to selective schools, including UNCChapel Hill, at which they would likely be admitted and at which they would enroll if offered sufficient financial aid.
126. One study found that between 25,000 and 35,000 socioeconomically disadvantaged high school seniors obtain an SAT or ACT in the 90th percentile or higher and have a GPA of A- or better. Nearly 6 percent of this group is African American and nearly 8 percent is Hispanic. A great many of these socioeconomically
37

disadvantaged students “undermatch” by applying to and enrolling at colleges and universities less selective than the ones to which they could have been admitted. See Caroline Hoxby, Christopher Avery, The Missing “One-Offs”: The Hidden Supply of High-Achieving, Low-Income Students, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (Spring 2013).
127. Universities with race-neutral admissions have increased their student body diversity by improving recruitment of these socioeconomically disadvantaged, high-achieving minority students. For example, after race-based admissions were eliminated in Texas, the University of Texas at Austin increased its student body diversity by implementing numerous programs designed to recruit students from underrepresented regions and high schools, including “Longhorn Game Weekends,” which focus on specific geographic regions, and “Longhorn for a Day,” which reaches out to students in underrepresented high schools.
128. Furthermore, a study found that simply mailing a well-designed, targeted brochure to high-achieving, socioeconomically disadvantaged students could be instrumental in causing them to apply to selective colleges and universities. See Sheryll Cashin, Place not Race: A New Vision of Opportunity in America 49 (2014).
129. Universities also have achieved student body diversity by aggressively recruiting high-achieving community college students, who are more likely to be African American or Hispanic. For example, in 1997, after California banned racial preferences, the University of California substantially increased its recruitment and enrollment of community college students. As a result of the University of
38

California’s efforts, by 2012, about 29 percent of new students enrolling in the University of California system were transfers from community colleges. See Preparing California for Its Future: Enhancing Community College Student Transfer to the University of California (2014).
130. UNC-Chapel Hill can do far more to recruit high-achieving, socioeconomically disadvantaged minority students or high-achieving community college students. Carolina’s Student Transfer Excellence Program (C-STEP) has enrolled a mere 450 students since 2006, which represents fewer than 2 percent of new students enrolled during that time period.
131. This failure to recruit socioeconomically disadvantaged students is reflected in UNC-Chapel Hill’s applicant pool. Although there are more than 10,000 high schools in the country that have students with the credentials to be admitted to UNC-Chapel Hill, only a small fraction of these schools have students who ultimately apply to UNC-Chapel Hill.
132. UNC-Chapel Hill could achieve its student body diversity without the use of racial preferences by improving its recruitment of socioeconomically disadvantaged, high-achieving minorities and community college students.
D. UNC-Chapel Hill Can Achieve Student Body Diversity Without Using Race As A Factor In Admissions Decisions Through Elimination Of Admissions Policies And Practices That Harm Minority Applicants.
133. UNC-Chapel Hill employs admissions practices and policies that make it more difficult for socioeconomically disadvantaged minorities to gain admission.
39

Eliminating these practices and policies would allow UNC-Chapel Hill to achieve student body diversity without using racial preferences.
134. UNC-Chapel Hill purports to not grant admissions preferences to instate legacies, yet the Admissions Director acknowledges that he is aware of the legacy status of all applicants (both in-state and out-of-state).
135. In addition, UNC-Chapel Hill conceded to the Department of Education that “for out-of-state students, status as an alumni child can ... be very important” in the admissions process.
136. Eighteen percent of first year students at UNC-Chapel Hill are the children of alumni.
137. At most universities throughout the country, including UNC-Chapel Hill, children of alums are less likely to be socioeconomically disadvantaged or racial minorities than the rest of the student body. Thus, colleges and universities, like UNC-Chapel Hill, that grant admissions preferences to legacies give a competitive advantage to mainly white, wealthy applicants, while undermining the chances for admission of socioeconomically disadvantaged and minority applicants. See John Brittain and Eric L. Bloom, Admitting the Truth: The Effect of Affirmative Action, Legacy Preferences, and the Meritocratic Ideal on Students of Color in College Admissions, Affirmative Action for the Rich (2010).
138. As a consequence, eliminating legacy preferences in conjunction with other race-neutral admissions policies can achieve student body diversity. Several universities, including Texas A&M University, the University of Georgia, and the
40

University of California, have increased their student body diversity by ending their practice of favoring legacies in the admissions process in conjunction with the elimination of racial preferences.
139. Furthermore, one study found that eliminating legacy preferences in combination with other race-neutral admissions criteria could more than double African-American and Hispanic enrollment and more than triple the enrollment of socioeconomically disadvantaged students. See Anthony P. Carnevale, Stephen J. Rose, Jeff Strohl, Achieving Racial and Economic Diversity with Race-Blind Admissions Policy, The Future of Affirmative Action (2014).
140. Eliminating legacy preferences is a workable race-neutral strategy. Research finds that the existence of legacy preferences does not increase alumni donations to an institution. See Chad Coffman, Tara O’Neil, and Brian Starr, An Empirical Analysis of Legacy Preferences on Alumni Giving at Top Universities, Affirmative Action for the Rich (2010).
141. UNC-Chapel Hill can achieve student body diversity without using racial preferences by eliminating legacy admissions preferences in conjunction with other race-neutral measures.
142. UNC-Chapel Hill also admits applicants through an early admission program. Early admissions is a practice in which schools allow students to submit their application in the early Fall if they apply to only one school or promise to attend the school if admitted.
41

143. Early admission programs, like UNC-Chapel Hill’s program, usually benefit wealthier and better-informed students because these students have the resources to submit their application early and do not need to hold out for the prospect of financial aid. See Justin Pope, Harvard Drops Early Admissions, Saying They Favor Wealthier Students Over Minorities, Poor, Associated Press (Sept. 12, 2006).
144. By contrast, socioeconomically disadvantaged students and minorities face a disadvantage under early admission programs because they often receive inadequate information and counseling and lack the economic resources to commit to a school so early in the process.
145. UNC-Chapel Hill can achieve student body diversity without using racial preferences by eliminating its early admissions program in conjunction with other race-neutral measures.
E. Achieving Student Body Diversity Through Race-Neutral Means Eliminates The Heavy Cost Imposed By The Use Of Racial Preferences.
146. Any assessment of the feasibility of race-neutral alternatives must also take into account the heavy costs of not employing them. The costs of continuing to use racial preferences when workable race-neutral alternatives exist are high from both a legal and a practical perspective.
147. As a legal matter, “[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people, and therefore are contrary to our traditions and hence constitutionally suspect.” Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 133 S. Ct. 2411, 2418 (2013) (citations and quotations omitted). As a
42

result, the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore Title VI, “forbids the use even of narrowly drawn racial classifications except as a last resort.” Croson, 488 U.S. at 519 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).
148. UNC-Chapel Hill’s practice of labeling all applicants according to broad racial categories illustrates why such classifications are pernicious and always create the “danger that a racial classification is merely the product of unthinking stereotypes or a form of racial politics.” Croson, 488 U.S. at 493.
149. These racial categories lump together students in categories such as “African American” or “Hispanic” or “Asian American,” even though they come from vastly different cultures, experiences, and backgrounds.
150. For example, UNC-Chapel Hill’s category of “Asian Americans” comprises roughly 60 percent of the world’s population, including individuals of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Hmong, and Indian descent.
151. While many Asian Americans have been in the United States for generations, others are recent immigrants or children of immigrants. Some Asian Americans came to the United States to escape communism, authoritarianism, war, and poverty, while others simply sought out greater opportunities. Some Asian Americans come from highly educated families, but many others do not.
152. Asian Americans also have a wide range of religious beliefs, including Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, and many others. Some come from cultures that aggressively promote education, while many others come from cultures that take a less demanding approach.
43

153. Thus, for example, Indian-American students are different from Japanese-American students; Vietnamese-American students are different from Chinese-American students; and students from Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan all have unique perspectives and cultural experiences.
154. Given this diversity, it is lamentable for UNC-Chapel Hill to lump all Asian Americans together in the admissions process. Yet this categorization is the inevitable byproduct of using group-based racial classifications instead of employing race-neutral alternatives that are able to account for the vast differences among applicants.
155. Racial classifications also have a stigmatizing effect on the supposed beneficiaries of these policies. Irrespective of whether an individual AfricanAmerican or Hispanic applicant is admitted to UNC-Chapel Hill because of a racial preference, so long as racial preferences exist, it will often be assumed that race is the reason for the applicant’s admission to the school. This stigma can have a devastating effect on the psyche of impressionable students.
156. For example, according to one African American who attended an elite liberal arts college, upon arriving at school, “I was immediately stereotyped and put into a box because I was African-American. And that made it harder to perform….. There was a general feeling that all blacks on campus were there either because they were athletes or they came through a minority-recruitment program and might not really belong there.” Shaken by the experience, the student dropped out after his freshman year.
44

157. UNC-Chapel Hill can eliminate the harmful effects these unfair stereotypes cause by using race-neutral alternatives.
158. Finally, the “mismatch effect” of racial preferences far too frequently put the supposed beneficiaries of race-based admissions policies in a position where they cannot succeed academically in order to fulfill the university’s social-engineering vision.
159. This “mismatch” effect happens when a school employs such a large admissions preference that the student is academically damaged in a variety of ways by being placed in an academic environment where most of the student’s peers have substantially stronger levels of academic preparation.
160. For example, a student who would flourish at a less elite school instead finds himself or herself at UNC-Chapel Hill, where the professors are not teaching at a pace designed for him or her. Instead, they are teaching to the “middle” of the class, introducing terms and concepts at a speed that is unnerving even to the best-prepared student.
161. The student who is underprepared relative to others in that class falls behind from the start and becomes increasingly lost as the professor and classmates race ahead. The student’s grades on his or her first exams or papers put him or her at the bottom of the class. Worse, the experience may well induce panic and self-doubt, making learning even more difficult, thus creating a vicious cycle that only exacerbates the problem.
45

162. The “mismatch effect” has been documented in dozens of studies. See, e.g., Peter Arcidiacono, Esteban M. Aucejo, and Ken Spenner, What Happens After Enrollment? An Analysis of the Time Path of Racial Differences in GPA and Major Choice (2011); U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Encouraging Minority Students to Pursue Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Careers, Briefing Report (October 2010); Richard Sander and Roger Bolus, Do Credential Gaps in College Reduce the Number of Minority Science Graduates? (2009); Richard Sander, A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools, 57 Stan. L. Rev. 367 (2004); Stephen Cole and Elinor Barber, Increasing Faculty Diversity (2003); Rogers Elliott, A. Christopher Strenta, Russell Adair, Michael Matier and Jannah Scott, The Role of Ethnicity in Choosing and Leaving Science in Highly Selective Institutions, 37 Research in Higher Education 681 (1996).
163. As this research demonstrates, African-American college freshmen are more likely to aspire to science or engineering careers than are white freshmen, but mismatch causes African Americans to abandon these fields at twice the rate of whites.
164. As a consequence, African Americans who start college interested in pursuing a doctorate and an academic career are twice as likely to be derailed from this path if they attend a school where they are mismatched.
165. Furthermore, about half of African-American college students rank in the bottom 20 percent of their classes.
46

166. Mismatch also creates social problems on campus. The academic research shows that interracial friendships are more likely to form among students with relatively similar levels of academic preparation; thus, African Americans and Hispanics are more socially integrated on campuses where they are less academically mismatched.
167. UNC-Chapel Hill has experienced and continues to experience the “mismatch effect.” At least two serious forms of mismatch have been specifically documented in studies that included students from UNC-Chapel Hill: “academic mismatch” and “science mismatch.”
168. In 2003, Harvard University Press published Increasing Faculty Diversity, a major study by sociologists Stephen Cole and Elinor Barber that sought to understand why there were so few underrepresented minorities—particularly African Americans—in the academic pipeline leading to university faculty positions. In an effort sponsored by the Council of Ivy League Presidents, Cole and Barber conducted in-depth surveys of thousands of underrepresented minority students at a wide range of institutions, including at UNC-Chapel Hill.
169. They focused on students who started college with a significant interest in pursuing an academic career. They found, however, that when students received a large preference to attend a more elite school, they tended to get lower grades than they would have had they attended a school where their credentials were close to (or even above) the median of their classmates. Students receiving large preferences
47

were more likely to get low grades, and poor performance sharply eroded their interest in pursuing an academic career.
170. The study’s results demonstrate that colleges like UNC-Chapel Hill play a double role: the strongest minority students attending UNC-Chapel Hill (those who received no preference or a minimal preference) outperformed their Ivy League peers and quite often remained on the academic track; those who received large preferences into UNC-Chapel Hill were likely to suffer from academic mismatch. No subsequent research has rebutted Cole and Barber’s findings.
171. In 2004, two psychologists at the University of Virginia published a peer-reviewed study of minority attrition in the sciences. See Frederick L. Smyth and John J. McArdle, Ethnic and Gender Differences in Science Graduation at Selective Colleges With Implications For Admission Policy and College Choice, Research In Higher Education, Vol. 45, No. 4 (June 2003). These scholars gained permission to use the College and Beyond dataset assembled by the Mellon Foundation. This data set included comprehensive data from Ivy League colleges, selective liberal arts colleges, historically black colleges, and several flagship state university, including UNC-Chapel Hill.
172. Smyth and McArdle examined what factors affected the success of students in science, technology, engineering, and math (“STEM”) fields of study. They found that a critical factor was a student’s academic preparation relative to her peers. Moreover, they found that this effect was essentially identical for white, African American, and Hispanic students. In all cases, students who attended a
48

school where their level of academic preparation was substantially lower than those of their peers were far more likely to drop out of STEM fields as compared to identical students who attended schools where their relative peer position was higher. The effect was so large that Smyth and McArdle advised high school counselors to take potential mismatch into account in helping students understand the pros and cons of attending “reach” schools.
173. UNC-Chapel Hill can eliminate this harmful mismatch and allow students to excel at schools for which they are most prepared by eliminating the use of racial preferences and employing race-neutral alternatives that bring high-performing, socioeconomically disadvantaged minorities into the applicant pool. VII. GOVERNING LAW
174. The Fourteenth Amendment provides, in relevant part, that no person shall be denied “the equal protection of the laws.”
175. Section 1981 of Title 42 of the United States Code provides: “All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”
176. Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code provides: “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected,
49

any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress ….”
177. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides: “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.
178. Under Title VI, “the term ‘program or activity’ and the term ‘program’ mean all of the operations … of a college, university, or other postsecondary institution, or a public system of higher education … any part of which is extended Federal financial assistance.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-4a.
179. An institution that accepts federal funds violates Title VI when it engages in racial or ethnic discrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. See Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 257 n.23 (2003) (“We have explained that discrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment committed by an institution that accepts federal funds also constitutes a violation of Title VI.”) (citing Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 281 (2001)).
180. The “central mandate” of equal protection is “racial neutrality” by the government or institution subject to the Fourteenth Amendment. Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 904 (1995). “Whenever the government treats any person unequally
50

because of his or her race, that person has suffered an injury that falls squarely within the language and spirit of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.” Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 229-30 (2000).
181. “Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people, and therefore are contrary to our traditions and hence constitutionally suspect.” Fisher, 133 S. Ct. at 2419 (citations and quotations omitted). Thus, “any official action that treats a person differently on account of race or ethnic origin is inherently suspect.” Id. (citation and quotations omitted). In other words, “because racial classifications so seldom provide a relevant basis for disparate treatment, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications be subjected to the most rigid scrutiny.” Id. (citations and quotations omitted).
182. “[A]ll racial classifications … must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny.” Adarand, 515 U.S. at 227. “Strict scrutiny is a searching examination, and it is the government that bears the burden to prove that the reasons for any racial classification are clearly identified and unquestionably legitimate.” Fisher, 133 S. Ct. at 2419 (citations and quotations omitted). Strict scrutiny thus requires a “detailed judicial inquiry to ensure that the personal right to equal protection of the laws has not been infringed.” Adarand, 515 U.S. at 227.
183. In particular, strict scrutiny requires a “detailed examination, both as to ends and to means.” Adarand, 515 U.S. at 236. When governmental institutions implement policies and practices that “touch upon an individual’s race or ethnic
51

background, he is entitled to a judicial determination that the burden he is asked to bear on that basis is precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.” Fisher, 133 S. Ct. at 2417 (citations and quotations omitted).
184. Racial “classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored to further compelling governmental interests.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 326.
185. “Strict scrutiny requires the university to demonstrate with clarity that its purpose or interest is both constitutionally permissible and substantial, and that its use of the classification is necessary to accomplish that purpose.” Fisher, 133 S. Ct. at 2418.
186. To meet strict scrutiny, the end must be “compelling”—not merely legitimate or important. To be narrowly tailored, “the means chosen” must “fit” the unmet compelling interest “so closely that there is little or no possibility that the motive for the classification was illegitimate racial prejudice or stereotype.” Croson, 488 U.S. at 493 (citations and quotations omitted). In other words, “racial classifications, however, compelling their goals, are potentially so dangerous that they may be employed no more broadly than the interest demands.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 342.
187. “To survive strict scrutiny,” moreover, the institution “must do more than assert a compelling state interest—it must demonstrate that its law is necessary to serve the asserted interest.” Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 199 (1992). The government must establish the necessity of using race by a “strong basis in evidence” because “the mere recitation” of a compelling interest is “not an automatic shield
52

which protects against any inquiry” into the justification for race-based action.” Croson, 488 U.S. at 495, 500. Strict scrutiny “forbids the use even of narrowly drawn racial classifications except as a last resort.” Id. at 519 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).
188. Racial quotas violate the Fourteenth Amendment. In the educational setting, then, “universities cannot establish quotas for members of certain racial groups or put members of those groups on separate admissions tracks. Nor can universities insulate applicants who belong to certain racial or ethnic groups from the competition for admission.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 334 (citation omitted).
189. Moreover, the university’s policy violates the Fourteenth Amendment if it amounts to “racial balancing, which is patently unconstitutional.” Id. at 329. Racial balancing is a program designed “to assure within [the school’s] student body some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin.” Id. (citations and quotation omitted). “[P]roportional representation” is never a constitutional “rationale for programs of preferential treatment.” Id. at 343.
190. The only interest in using racial preferences in higher education that the Supreme Court has accepted as “compelling” is the interest “in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 343. Redressing past discrimination does “not serve as a compelling interest, because a university’s broad mission of education is incompatible with making the judicial, legislative, or administrative findings of constitutional or statutory violations
53

necessary to justify remedial racial classification.” Fisher, 133 S. Ct. at 2417 (citations and quotations omitted).
191. The interest in student body diversity the Supreme Court has found compelling “is not an interest in simply ethnic diversity, in which a specified percentage of the student body is in effect guaranteed to be members of selected ethnic groups, with the remaining percentage an undifferentiated aggregation of students.” Fisher, 133 S. Ct. at 2418 (citation and quotations omitted). “[C]ritical mass is defined by reference to the educational benefits that diversity is designed to produce.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 330.
192. Even in the pursuit of critical mass, the Supreme Court has permitted race to be used only as a “plus” factor in admissions decisions. Id. at 333. “[I]t remains at all times the University’s obligation to demonstrate, and the Judiciary’s obligations to determine, that admissions processes ‘ensure that each applicant is evaluated as an individual and not in a way that makes an applicant’s race or ethnicity the defining feature of his or her application.’” Fisher, 133 S. Ct. at 2418 (quoting Grutter, 539 U.S. at 337). Thus, even if “the University has established that its goal of diversity is consistent with strict scrutiny, … there must still be a further judicial determination that the admissions process meets strict scrutiny in its implementation. The University must prove that the means chosen by the University to attain diversity are narrowly tailored to that goal.” Id. at 2419-20.
193. “Narrow tailoring also requires that the reviewing court verify that it is ‘necessary’ for a university to use race to achieve the educational benefits of diversity.
54

This involves a careful judicial inquiry into whether a university could achieve sufficient diversity without using racial classifications.” Id. at 2420 (internal citation omitted). Accordingly, strict scrutiny uniformly “require[s] a court to examine with care, and not defer to, a university’s ‘serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives.’” Id. (quoting Grutter, 539 U.S. at 339- 340).
194. “Consideration by the university is of course necessary, but it is not sufficient to satisfy strict scrutiny: The reviewing court must ultimately be satisfied that no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity. If a nonracial approach ... could promote the substantial interest about as well and at tolerable administrative expense, then the university may not consider race.” Id. (citations and quotations omitted).
195. As a consequence, “strict scrutiny imposes on the university the ultimate burden of demonstrating, before turning to racial classifications, that available, workable race-neutral alternatives do not suffice.” Id. (emphasis added). VIII. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
196. UNC-Chapel Hill’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violates the Fourteenth Amendment and federal civil rights laws. First, UNC-Chapel Hill’s use of racial preferences is not narrowly tailored because UNCChapel Hill is not pursuing the critical-mass interest found permissible in Grutter by failing to use race merely as “plus” factor. Second, UNC-Chapel Hill is not fully utilizing a number of race-neutral alternatives that can achieve student body diversity. Third, and last, whether or not UNC-Chapel Hill is found to be acting permissibly
55

under Supreme Court precedent, the Supreme Court should overrule any decision holding that the Fourteenth Amendment or federal civil rights law ever permit the use of racial preferences to achieve “diversity.”
COUNT I Violation of The Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 2000d
et seq. (Failure To Use Race Merely As A “Plus” Factor In Admissions Decisions).
197. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations and averments contained in paragraphs 1-196 as if fully set forth herein.
198. UNC-Chapel Hill has intentionally discriminated against certain of Plaintiff’s members on the basis of their race, color, or ethnicity in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and § 2000d et seq., by employing an undergraduate admissions policy that does not merely use race as a “plus” factor in admissions decisions in order to achieve student body diversity.
199. Statistical and other evidence shows that each applicant is not evaluated as an individual. Instead, race or ethnicity is the defining feature of the application. Only using race or ethnicity as a dominant factor in admissions decisions could account for the decision to admit certain African-American and Hispanic applicants and deny admission to certain white and Asian-American applicants.
200. Plaintiff’s members have been and will continue to be injured because UNC-Chapel Hill has and will continue to deny them the opportunity to compete for admission to UNC-Chapel Hill on equal footing with other applicants on the basis of
56

race or ethnicity due to its intentionally discriminatory admissions policies and procedures.
201. Defendants acted under color of law in developing and implementing race-based policies that led UNC-Chapel Hill to deny Plaintiff’s members equal protection of the laws and to discriminate against them in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and § 2000d et seq.
202. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and a permanent injunction because there is no plain, adequate, or speedy remedy at law to prevent UNC-Chapel Hill from continuing to use admissions policies and procedures that discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and because the harm Plaintiff’s members will otherwise continue to suffer is irreparable.
203. Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT II Violation of The Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 2000d
et seq. (Race-Neutral Alternatives) 204. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations and averments contained in paragraphs 1-203 as if fully set forth herein. 205. UNC-Chapel Hill has intentionally discriminated against certain of Plaintiff’s members on the basis of their race, color, or ethnicity in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and § 2000d et seq., by
57

employing racial preferences in undergraduate admissions when there are available race-neutral alternatives capable of achieving student body diversity.
206. UNC-Chapel Hill’s use of racial preferences is narrowly tailored only if using them is necessary to achieve student body diversity. If UNC-Chapel Hill can achieve student body diversity without resorting to racial preferences, it is required to do so as a matter of law. Moreover, UNC-Chapel Hill must have a strong basis in evidence that a non-racial approach will not work about as well as a race-based approach before turning to the use of racial preferences.
207. There is no evidence that UNC-Chapel Hill studied all of the available race-neutral alternatives and had a strong basis in evidence that none would work about as well before turning to racial preferences.
208. Whether UNC-Chapel Hill considered them all or not, there are a host of race-neutral alternatives that if implemented can achieve student body diversity without resorting to racial preferences. Among these alternatives, both individually and collectively, are (a) increased use of non-racial preferences, including a percentage plan, (b) increased financial aid, scholarships, and recruitment efforts, and (c) elimination of admissions policies and practices that negatively affect minority applicants.
209. The use of race-neutral alternatives instead of racial preferences would not only achieve student body diversity, it would eliminate the heavy costs that using race as a factor in admissions decisions imposes on minority applicants who receive such admissions preference, the North Carolina community, and society as a whole.
58

210. Plaintiff’s members have been and will continue to be injured because UNC-Chapel Hill has and will continue to deny them the opportunity to compete for admission to UNC-Chapel Hill on equal footing with other applicants on the basis of race or ethnicity due to its intentionally discriminatory admissions policies and procedures.
211. Defendants acted under color of law in developing and implementing race-based policies that led UNC-Chapel Hill to deny Plaintiff’s members equal protection of the laws and to discriminate against them in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and § 2000d et seq.
212. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and a permanent injunction because there is no plain, adequate, or speedy remedy at law to prevent UNC-Chapel Hill from continuing to use admissions policies and procedures that discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and federal civil rights laws and because the harm Plaintiff’s members will otherwise continue to suffer is irreparable.
213. Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
COUNT III Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C §§ 1981, 1983, and 2000d
et seq. (Any Use of Race As A Factor In Admissions). 214. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations and averments contained in paragraphs 1-213 as if fully set forth herein.
59

215. UNC-Chapel Hill has intentionally discriminated against certain of Plaintiff’s members on the basis of their race, color, or ethnicity in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and § 2000d et seq., by employing an undergraduate admissions policy that uses race as a factor in admissions.
216. The Supreme Court’s decisions holding that there is a compelling government interest in using race as a factor in admissions decisions in pursuit of “diversity” should be overruled. Those decisions were wrongly decided at the time they were issued, and they remain wrong today. “Diversity” is not an interest that could ever justify the use of racial preferences under the Fourteenth Amendment and federal civil rights laws.
217. Even if there were a compelling government interest in “diversity” in the abstract, however, the use of racial preferences in the educational setting nevertheless should be forbidden for several important reasons.
218. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in this area has been built on mistakes of fact and law. The Supreme Court first accepted the use of racial preferences in admissions on the assumption that they would be used consistent with the “Harvard Plan,” which purported to use race merely as a contextual factor in filling the final few places in the entering class. But the Harvard Plan itself was created in order to hide racial and ethnic discrimination. Thus, it is far from certain that Harvard itself ever used race in this fashion. “The raison d’être for race-specific affirmative action programs has simply never been diversity for the sake of
60

education.” Alan Dershowitz and Laura Hanft, Affirmative Action and the Harvard College Diversity-Discretion Model: Paradigm or Pretext, 1 Cardozo L. Rev. 379, 407 (1979). It is instead “a clever post facto justification for increasing the number of minority group students in the student body.” Id.
219. In any event, neither Harvard nor UNC-Chapel Hill nor any other college or university uses race in this manner now. Indeed, UNC-Chapel Hill strongly denies that it uses race as a “tie breaker” to fill the remaining few seats in the entering class. Instead, college and universities, including UNC-Chapel Hill, claim to use race in order to pursue a “critical mass” of underrepresented minorities in the student body. But UNC-Chapel Hill is not pursuing this interest. Even when this interest is actually being pursued, moreover, it is nothing more than racial balancing in that it necessarily seeks to ensure a proportional number of students of certain races or ethnicities in the entering class. Critical mass is a formula for ensuring “a specified percentage of the student body is in effect guaranteed to be members of selected ethnic groups, with the remaining percentage an undifferentiated aggregation of students.” Bakke, 438 U.S. at 315 (Powell, J.).
220. Ultimately, there is overwhelming evidence that colleges and universities will take advantage of any leeway given by the Supreme Court to use the dangerous tool of racial preferences in inappropriate ways. Colleges and universities, if given the chance, will use racial preferences “for the ostensible purpose of enhancing education diversity of the student body” with the true “goal of simply increasing the number of minority persons in the universities and in the professions
61

that these universities feed.” Alan Dershowitz and Laura Hanft, Affirmative Action and the Harvard College Diversity-Discretion Model: Paradigm or Pretext, 1 Cardozo L. Rev. 379, 385 (1979).
221. There simply is no practical way to ensure that colleges and universities will use race in their admissions processes in any way that would meet the narrow tailoring requirement. The strong medicine of strict scrutiny has proven insufficient to ensure that the Fourteenth Amendment and federal civil rights laws operate in conformity with racial neutrality except in those rare circumstances that justify the use of this disfavored remedy. Time after time, district courts and courts of appeals have been either unwilling or unable to force these colleges and university to provide a strong evidentiary basis for their conclusion that use of racial preferences is necessary to achieve diversity. Nor have they been willing to engage in the close review of admissions programs to ensure that schools are treating each applicant as an individual.
222. There also have been important factual developments since this question was last considered by the Supreme Court. There is now much evidence that raceneutral alternatives can achieve the benefits of diversity. This is crucially important in light of the equally compelling evidence that racial preferences impose significant costs on the university community, society in general, and the very minority students these programs are purported to benefit.
223. In the end, the costs of allowing the use of racial preferences in admissions decisions—even in a limited way—far exceed any rapidly diminishing
62

benefits. No principle of stare decisis counsels in favor of retaining decisions allowing their use. Those decisions were not well reasoned, were predicated on mistakes of fact, have been undermined by more recent developments, and have proven to be unworkable. Any decision allowing the use of racial preferences in the educational setting should be overruled.
224. Plaintiff’s members have been and will continue to be injured because UNC-Chapel Hill has and will continue to deny them the opportunity to compete for admission to UNC-Chapel Hill on equal footing with other applicants on the basis of race or ethnicity due to its intentionally discriminatory admissions policies and procedures.
225. Defendants acted under color of law in developing and implementing race-based policies that led UNC-Chapel Hill to deny Plaintiff’s members equal protection of the laws and to discriminate against them in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and § 2000d et seq.
226. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and a permanent injunction because there is no plain, adequate, or speedy remedy at law to prevent UNC-Chapel Hill from continuing to use admissions policies and procedures that discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and because the harm Plaintiff’s members will otherwise continue to suffer is irreparable.
227. Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
63

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., prays for the following relief as to all counts:
(a) A declaratory judgment, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, from the Court that Defendants’ admissions policies and procedures violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., and federal civil rights statutes 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983;
(b) A declaratory judgment, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, from the Court that any use of race or ethnicity in the educational setting violates the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., and federal civil rights statutes 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983;
(c) A permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from using race as a factor in future undergraduate admissions decisions at UNC-Chapel Hill;
(d) A permanent injunction requiring Defendants to conduct all admissions in a manner that does not permit those engaged in the decisional process to be aware of or learn the race or ethnicity of any applicant for admission;
(e) Attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any other applicable legal authority; and
(f) All other relief this Court finds appropriate and just.
64

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands

a trial by jury in this action of all triable issues.

Dated: November 17, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Thomas R. McCarthy Thomas R. McCarthy

/s/ William S. Consovoy William S. Consovoy

/s/ J. Michael Connolly J. Michael Connolly Attorneys for Plaintiff CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC 3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700 Arlington, Virginia 22201 Telephone: (703) 243-4923 E-mail: tom@consovoymccarthy.com E-mail: will@consovoymccarthy.com E-mail: mike@consovoymccarthy.com

/s/ W. Ellis Boyle W. Ellis Boyle Bar Number: 33826 Attorney for Plaintiff, LR 83.1 counsel ELLIS BOYLE LAW PLLC 507 N. Blount St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Telephone: (919) 747-8386 E-mail: ellis@ellisboylelaw.com

65

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA; UNIVERSITY OF )

NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS; JOHN C. )

FENNEBRESQUE, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR., JOAN

)

TEMPLETON PERRY, ROGER AIKEN, HANNAH D.

)

GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, H. FRANK FRAINGER,

)

PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W.

)

HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR., RODNEY E. HOOD, W. )

MARTY KOTIS III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE,

)

STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, MARY ANN

)

MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W. G. CHAMPION

)

MITCHELL, HARI H. MATH, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, )

ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, THERENCE O.

)

PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, HARRY )

LEO SMITH, JR., J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A.

)

SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK III, )

PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY, as members of the )

Board of Governors in their official capacities; THOMAS W.

)

ROSS, President of the University of North Carolina in his official )

capacity; UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL )

HILL; CAROL L. FOLT, Chancellor of the University of North )

Carolina at Chapel Hill in her official capacity; UNIVERSITY OF )

NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF TRUSTEES; W. LOWRY )

CAUDILL, ALSTON GARDNER, SALLIE SHUPING-

)

RUSSELL, JEFFERSON W. BROWN, PHILLIP L. CLAY,

)

HAYWOOD D. COCHRANE, DONALD WILLIAMS CURTIS, )

CHARLES G. DUCKETT, PETER T. GRAUER, KELLY

)

MATTHEWS HOPKINS, STEVEN LERNER, DWIGHT D. )

STONE, ANDREW HENRY POWELL, as members of the

)

Board of Trustees in their official capacities; JAMES W. DEAN )

JR., Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost in his official capacity; )

STEPHEN M. FARMER, Vice Provost, Enrollment, and

)

Undergraduate Admissions in his official capacity,

)

)

Defendants.

)

1:14CV954

Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 150 Filed 09/29/18 Page 1 of 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER LORETTA C. BIGGS, District Judge.
Plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (“SFFA”) initiated this action against the above-named Defendants (collectively, the “University”), under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, alleging that the University’s use of race in its undergraduate admissions process violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. (“Title VI”). (ECF No. 1.) The following motions are currently before the Court: (i) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1), (ECF No. 106); (ii) Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal, (ECF No. 111); and (iii) Defendants’ Motions to File Under Seal Pursuant to Local Rule 5.4(c), (ECF Nos. 108, 116). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will be denied; and each of the motions to seal will be granted. I. BACKGROUND
SFFA is a Virginia nonprofit corporation. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 10; ECF No. 1-1 ¶ 2; ECF No. 113-2; ECF No. 113-5.) According to its Amended Bylaws, SFFA’s purpose is “to defend human and civil rights secured by law, including the right of individuals to equal protection under the law, through litigation and any other lawful means.” (ECF No. 107-5 art. II.) In particular, SFFA states that it “seeks to promote and protect the right of the public to be free from discrimination on the basis of race in higher education admissions.” (ECF No. 1 ¶ 10.) Edward J. Blum (“Blum”) serves as the President of SFFA. (ECF No. 1-1 ¶ 2.) SFFA is managed by a Board of Directors, “consist[ing] of four (4) Board-Elected Directors and one (1) Member-Elected Director.” (ECF No. 107-5 art. IV, §§ 4.01, 4.02.) The Board-Elected
2
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 150 Filed 09/29/18 Page 2 of 17

directors are elected by “a majority of the directors then in office,” whereas the Member-
Elected director is elected by a majority of SFFA members. (Id. art. IV, § 4.04.)
SFFA’s members, referred to as “General Members”1 in its Bylaws, (Id. art. III, §§ 3.01,
3.02), include “prospective applicants and applicants to higher education institutions who were
denied admission to higher education institutions, their parents, and other individuals who
support the organization’s purpose and mission,” (ECF No. 1 ¶ 11). At its inception, members
were not required to pay a membership fee “because [SFFA] believed [not paying a fee] would
encourage participation, aid membership recruitment, and ensure the success of [SFFA] in its
early stages.” (ECF No. 113-6 at 1; see ECF No. 113-1 at 10–11.) SFFA has since amended
its Bylaws to establish a dues policy whereby, as of July 30, 2015, members are required “to
pay a one-time assessment of $10 as membership dues.” (ECF No. 113-6 at 2; ECF No. 113-
1 at 10–11.)
SFFA currently has over 22,000 members, (ECF No. 113-9 at 2), although it asserts
associational standing based on the circumstances of four members (the “Standing
Members”),2 each of whom have submitted signed declarations in support of SFFA’s
1 The organization’s Bylaws define a General Member as “[a]ny individual who seeks to support the purposes and mission of the Corporation, pays membership dues as may be prescribed by the Board of Directors, and meets any additional standards and procedures that may be prescribed from time to time by the Board of Directors.” (ECF No. 107-5 art. III, § 3.02). SFFA’s Bylaws specifically state that General Members are not members within the meaning of the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act “and shall have only the rights specifically set forth in the[ ] Bylaws.” (Id. art. III § 3.01.) Under the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act (the “Act”), a “member” is “one having a membership interest in a corporation in accordance with the provisions of its articles of incorporation or bylaws.” Va. Code Ann. § 13.1-803. “Membership interest” as defined under the Act is defined as the “interest of a member in a domestic or foreign corporation, including voting and all other rights associated with membership.” Id. 2 The Court notes that in their reply brief, Defendants argue that “the University should be allowed to depose SFFA’s two new standing members,” namely, Standing Members 5 and 6. (ECF No. 115
3
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 150 Filed 09/29/18 Page 3 of 17

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (See ECF Nos. 113-7, 113-10, 113-11, 11312.) The Standing Members are high school graduates, each of whom applied, and was denied admission to, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (“UNC-CH”). (ECF No. 1 ¶ 13; ECF Nos. 113-7, 113-10, 113-11, 113-12.) The declarations of the Standing Members state that they have voluntarily joined SFFA; they support its mission; they receive updates about the status of the case from SFFA’s President; and they have had “the opportunity to have input and direction on SFFA’s case.” (ECF Nos. 113-7, 113-10, 113-11, 113-12.)
SFFA filed its Complaint on November 17, 2014 in which it alleges that the University “has intentionally discriminated against certain of [its] members on the basis of their race, color, or ethnicity in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and [federal law]” by: (i) “employing an undergraduate admissions policy that does not merely use race as a ‘plus’ factor in admissions decisions in order to achieve student body diversity”; (ii) “employing racial preferences in undergraduate admissions where there are available race-neutral alternatives capable of achieving student body diversity”; and (iii) “employing an undergraduate admissions policy that uses race as a factor in admissions.” (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 198, 205, 215.) SFFA seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. (Id. at 64.)
Defendants move for dismissal of SFFA’s Complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), for lack of standing to sue. (ECF No. 106.) In addition, the parties have filed motions to seal
at 11.) In response to this argument, Plaintiff states that “[b]ecause Standing Members 5 [and] 6 are irrelevant to this motion, the Court is free to disregard their declarations for the purposes of resolving the motion.” (ECF No. 123 at 4 n.1.) In light of this concession by Plaintiff with respect to Standing Members 5 and 6, and further, because “[a]ssociational standing may exist even when just one of the association’s members would have standing,” Retail Indus. Leaders Ass’n v. Fielder, 475 F.3d 180, 186 (4th Cir. 2007), the Court will not consider the circumstances of Standing Members 5 and 6 in ruling on the instant motion to dismiss.
4
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 150 Filed 09/29/18 Page 4 of 17

unredacted materials submitted in conjunction with their briefing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 108, 111, 116.) The Court will first address Defendants’ motion to dismiss. II. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
A. Standard of Review Under Rule 12(b)(1), a party may seek dismissal based on the court’s “lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Subject-matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue that relates to the court’s power to hear a case and must be decided before a determination on the merits of the case. Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474, 479– 80 (4th Cir. 2005). A motion under Rule 12(b)(1) raises the question of “whether [the plaintiff] has a right to be in the district court at all and whether the court has the power to hear and dispose of [the] claim.” Holloway v. Pagan River Dockside Seafood, Inc., 669 F.3d 448, 452 (4th Cir. 2012). The burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction rests with the plaintiff. McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936); Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219 (4th Cir. 1982). “In determining whether jurisdiction exists, the district court is to regard the pleadings’ allegations as mere evidence on the issue, and may consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the proceeding to one for summary judgment.” Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, “the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts beyond the pleadings to show that a genuine issue of material fact exists.” Id. A court should grant a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction “only if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” Id. On a motion to dismiss for
5
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 150 Filed 09/29/18 Page 5 of 17

lack of standing, a court must construe the complaint in the plaintiff’s favor, accepting as true the factual allegations in the complaint. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975); see also Kerns v. United States, 585 F.3d 187, 192 (4th Cir. 2009).
B. Discussion Defendants argue that SFFA’s Complaint should be dismissed because SFFA, which asserts “‘representational standing’ . . . to pursue claims on behalf of its members,” has failed to demonstrate standing to sue. (ECF No. 107 at 1, 2.) Specifically, Defendants argue that “[b]ecause SFFA’s members lack indicia of membership in an organization, SFFA cannot clear the threshold hurdle of eligibility for representational standing.” (ECF No. 107 at 6.) In response, SFFA argues that the University is incorrect and “[t]he indicia-of-membership test does not apply to voluntary membership associations like SFFA.” (ECF No. 113 at 11.) SFFA further argues that, even if such a test applies, “SFFA would easily satisfy it.” (ECF No. 113 at 11.) The Court agrees with SFFA. Under Article III of the United States Constitution, the jurisdiction of a federal court is limited to cases and controversies. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. Standing to sue, therefore, “ensure[s] that federal courts do not exceed their authority.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016). To establish constitutional standing at the motion-to-dismiss stage, Plaintiffs must plausibly allege that they have: “(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Id. Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing these elements. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). “Where, as here, a case is at the pleading
6
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 150 Filed 09/29/18 Page 6 of 17

stage, [Plaintiffs] must ‘clearly . . . allege facts demonstrating’ each element.” Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1547 (quoting Warth, 422 U.S. at 518).
“The standing requirement must be satisfied by individual and organizational plaintiffs alike.” White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 458 (4th Cir. 2005). An organizational plaintiff may establish standing to sue on its own behalf when the organization seeks redress for an alleged injury suffered by the organization itself. Id. “Additionally, an organizational plaintiff may establish associational standing to bring an action in federal court on behalf of its members.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). At issue here is whether SFFA has associational standing3 to sue.
Associational standing exists when: “(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.” Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977). Although the first two requirements are constitutional in nature, the third is prudential. United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Grp., Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 555–57 (1996). “Associational standing may exist even when just one of the association’s
3 In their briefs, the parties appear to use the terms “representational standing” and “associational standing” to refer to an organization’s ability to sue on behalf of its members. (See generally ECF Nos. 107, 113, 115.) Courts have used both terms to refer to this concept. See, e.g., United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Grp., Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 553 (1996) (explaining that the requirements for “associational standing” to sue were elaborated in Hunt); Pennell v. City of San Jose, 485 U.S. 1, 7 n.3 (1988) (explaining that the Hunt requirements must be satisfied in order to assert “associational or representational standing”); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Gaston Copper Recycling Corp., 204 F.3d 149, 155 (4th Cir. 2000) (explaining that an organization has “representational standing” when the Hunt factors are satisfied). Because the Supreme Court in Hunt uses the term “associational standing,” this Court will likewise employ that term here.
7
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 150 Filed 09/29/18 Page 7 of 17

members would have standing.” Retail Industry Leaders Ass’n v. Fielder, 475 F.3d 180, 186 (4th Cir. 2007).
Relying on Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advertising Comm’n, Defendants here argue that before determining whether SFFA meets the requirements necessary for associational standing, the Court must first examine whether SFFA’s constituents possess indicia of membership. (ECF No. 107 at 5–6.)
In Hunt, the Supreme Court considered whether the Commission at issue in that case was precluded “from asserting the claims of . . . its constituency,” based on the fact that it was “a state agency, rather than a traditional voluntary membership organization.” Hunt, 432 U.S. at 344. The Supreme Court held that it was not so precluded, and further concluded that, where an organization lacked formal members, it could still have associational standing if its constituents “possess[ed] all of the indicia of membership in an organization.” Id. To establish indicia of membership, an organization must show that its purported members: (i) elect the organization’s leadership; (ii) serve as the organization’s leadership; and (iii) finance the organization’s activities, including the costs of litigation. See id. at 344–45. According to the Court, even though the Commission was not a “traditional voluntary membership organization,” it nonetheless had associational standing to sue because “[i]n a very real sense,” the Commission represented its constituency and it “provide[d] the means by which they express[ed] their collective views and protect[ed] their collective interests.” Id.
Courts apply the indicia-of-membership test for associational standing purposes in cases where an organization lacks traditional voluntary membership or any actual members, like the state agency at issue in Hunt. See id. at 344 (“[W]hile the apple growers and dealers are
8
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 150 Filed 09/29/18 Page 8 of 17

not ‘members’ of the Commission in the traditional trade association sense, they possess all of the indicia of membership in an organization.”); see also Disability Advocates, Inc. v. N.Y. Coal. for Quality Assisted Living, Inc., 675 F.3d 149, 159 (2d Cir. 2012) (explaining that the Supreme Court in Hunt “held that the Constitution requires that the constituents of a non-membership organization manifest the ‘indicia of membership’ for that organization to have associational standing to sue on their behalf.”); Funeral Consumers All., Inc. v. Serv. Corp. Int’l, 695 F.3d 330, 344 n.9 (5th Cir. 2012) (stating that “[i]f the association seeking standing does not have traditional members, as here, the association establishes its standing by proving that it has ‘indicia of membership’” (citing Hunt, 432 U.S. at 344–45)); Pub. Interest Research Grp. of N.J., Inc. v. Magnesium Elektron, Inc., 123 F.3d 111, 119 (3d Cir. 1997) (stating that organizations with charters prohibiting them from having formal members “need only prove that their members possess the ‘indicia of membership’” in order to assert associational standing); Wilson v. Thomas, 43 F. Supp. 3d 628, 632 (E.D.N.C. 2014) (applying the indicia-of-membership test to a nonmembership organization to determine associational standing).
As articulated by the court in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College,4 however, “[i]t is less clear . . . whether Hunt’s indicia-of-membership test can or should ever be undertaken in connection with associations that actually have identifiable members, such as SFFA, and if so, under what circumstances.” 261 F. Supp. 3d 99, 107 (D. Mass. 2017) (citing cases). Defendants argue that “[s]ince Hunt, . . . courts that have evaluated
4 SFFA has filed a similar action, currently pending in the District of Massachusetts, in which it alleges that Harvard “employs racially and ethnically discriminatory policies and procedures in administering its undergraduate admissions program, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Harvard, 261 F. Supp. 3d at 102.
9
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 150 Filed 09/29/18 Page 9 of 17

eligibility for [associational] standing have regularly examined whether the organization’s
constituents possess indicia of membership.” (ECF No. 107 at 6.) Yet, despite this
contention, Defendants cite no cases where the indicia-of-membership test was applied to a
voluntary membership organization like SFFA. Moreover, like the district court in Harvard,
this Court “is not aware of any case that explicitly stands for this proposition.” Harvard, 261
F. Supp. 3d at 107. Rather, in each of the cases cited by Defendants in support of this
argument, the indicia-of-membership test was applied to organizations that were not
traditional voluntary membership associations. See, e.g., Doe v. Stincer, 175 F.3d 879, 885–86
(11th Cir. 1999) (applying indicia-of-membership test to advocacy center with constituents
rather than traditional members); Heap v. Carter, 112 F. Supp. 3d 402, 418–19 (E.D. Va. 2015)
(examining the indicia of membership of an organization for which it had “no details about
who the membership is or whether [the organization] truly can be considered a voluntary
membership organization or a functional equivalent”); Gettman v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 290 F.3d
430, 435 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (applying indicia-of-membership test to an organization that “does
not have any members”).
Accordingly, like the court in Harvard, this Court concludes that:
[t]he circumstances here do not call for a functional analysis of SFFA’s membership. Where SFFA has clearly stated its mission in its Bylaws and website, where it has consistently, and recently, in highly public ways, pursued efforts to end alleged racial discrimination in college admissions through litigation, and where its members voluntarily associate themselves with the organization, it can be presumed for the purposes of standing that SFFA adequately represents the interests of its current members without needing to test this further based on the indicia-of-membership factors.
Harvard, 261 F. Supp. 3d at 109.
10
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 150 Filed 09/29/18 Page 10 of 17

Having determined that the indicia-of-membership test is inapplicable, the Court next turns to whether SFFA satisfies the following requirements, set forth in Hunt, for associational standing: “(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.” Hunt, 432 U.S. at 343. Although Defendants present no arguments asserting that SFFA has failed to meet these requirements, the Court has an independent obligation to ensure that SFFA has standing. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envt’l Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180 (2000) (stating that the courts have “an obligation to assure ourselves” of litigants’ standing).
With respect to the first requirement, “an organization suing as representative [must] include at least one member with standing to present, in his or her own right, the claim (or the type of claim) pleaded by the association.” United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 751, 517 U.S. at 555. Here, SFFA has provided declarations from four Standing Members, each of whom are high school graduates who applied for admission to UNC-CH, and was denied in 2012, 2014, 2015 and 2016. (ECF Nos. 113-7, 113-10, 113-11, 113-12.) Each Standing Member further states that, while eligible, they have been “able and ready” to apply to transfer to UNC-CH if it were to end its “use of race or ethnicity as an admissions preference.” (ECF Nos. 113-7, 113-10, 113-11, 113-12.) SFFA has therefore demonstrated that it has satisfied the requirement that at least one of its Standing Members would have standing to sue on their own. See Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 262 (2003) (concluding that rejected applicant who
11
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 150 Filed 09/29/18 Page 11 of 17

was “able and ready” to transfer “has standing to seek prospective relief with respect to the University’s continued use of race in undergraduate admissions”).
With respect to the second requirement, SFFA’s mission, as stated in its Bylaws, is “to defend human and civil rights secured by law, including the right of individuals to equal protection under the law, through litigation and any other lawful means.” (ECF No. 113-3 art. II.) Thus, the instant lawsuit which seeks to end the University’s alleged racial discrimination in its admission process is aligned with, and furthers, SFFA’s stated purpose. SFFA therefore satisfies the second requirement for associational standing.
With respect to the third requirement, because SFFA does not seek monetary damages but, rather, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, (ECF No. 1 at 64), “obtaining such relief, based on the claims in this case, would not require individual participation by its members.” Harvard, 261 F. Supp. 3d at 110. See Equal Rights Ctr. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 767 F. Supp. 2d 510, 529 (D. Md. 2010) (explaining that typically, “an application for money damages [has been] considered to be the type of request for relief that would preclude associational standing under Hunt’s third prong because damages claims usually require significant individual participation”). Ultimately, “[t]he injunctive and declaratory relief requested [here] need not be tailored to or require any individualized proof from any particular member.” Harvard, 261 F. Supp. 3d at 110.
In light of the Court’s determination that SFFA has satisfied the requirements necessary for associational standing, the Court concludes that SFFA has standing to sue on behalf of its members. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing will, therefore, be denied.
12
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 150 Filed 09/29/18 Page 12 of 17

III. MOTIONS TO SEAL The Court will next address the pending motions to seal. The parties move this Court
to file the following materials under seal: (i) Materials in the parties’ motion to dismiss briefs and accompanying exhibits related to the identity of its Standing Members, (ECF No. 108 ¶ 4; ECF No. 111 ¶¶ 3, 6; ECF No. 116 ¶ 5); and (ii) SFFA’s initial and supplemental responses to the University’s Interrogatory No. 5 regarding the identity of “any Person or entity” that has contributed or donated to SFFA since its inception, (ECF No. 108 ¶ 5; ECF No. 111 ¶ 3; ECF No. 116 ¶ 6).
“It is well settled that the public and press have a qualified right of access to judicial documents and records filed in civil and criminal proceedings.” Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 265 (4th Cir. 2014). “The right of public access springs from the First Amendment and the common-law tradition that court proceedings are presumptively open to public scrutiny.” Id. “The common law,” however, “does not afford as much substantive protection to the interests of the press and the public as does the First Amendment.” Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988). “The common-law presumptive right of access extends to all judicial documents and records, and the presumption can be rebutted only by showing that ‘countervailing interests heavily outweigh the public interests in access.’” Doe, 749 F.3d at 265–66 (quoting Rushford, 846 F.2d at 253). The First Amendment presumptive right of access, in contrast, extends “only to particular judicial records and documents.” Id. at 266. Further, the First Amendment presumptive right of access may only be restricted upon a showing that such a restriction is “necessitated by a compelling
13
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 150 Filed 09/29/18 Page 13 of 17

government interest and . . . narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Id. (internal quotation
marks omitted).
“When presented with a request to seal5 judicial records or documents, a district court
must comply with certain substantive and procedural requirements.” Va. Dep’t of State Police v.
Wash. Post, 386 F.3d 567, 576 (4th Cir. 2004). Procedurally, a district court presented with a
sealing request must:
(1) provide public notice of the sealing request and a reasonable opportunity for the public to voice objections to the motion; (2) consider less drastic alternatives to closure; and (3) if it determines that full access is not necessary, it must state its reasons—with specific findings—supporting closure and its rejections of less drastic alternatives.
Doe, 749 F.3d at 272. Local Rule 5.4 outlines similar requirements.6 LR 5.4. The burden rests
on the party seeking to keep information sealed. Va. Dep’t of State Police, 386 F.3d at 575. Here,
SFFA, as the party seeking to maintain the confidentiality of these documents, bears this
burden.
Substantively, a district court must “first ‘determine the source of the right of access
with respect to each document.’” Doe, 749 F.3d at 266 (quoting Va. Dep’t of State Police, 386
F.3d at 576). The Fourth Circuit has “squarely held that the First Amendment right of access
attaches to materials filed in connection with a summary judgment motion.” Id. at 267. The
5 Courts construe a request to redact a document as a request to seal in part. ATI Indus. Automation, Inc. v. Applied Robotics, Inc., 801 F. Supp. 2d 419, 424–25 (M.D.N.C. 2011) (collecting cases). 6 These requirements are: (1) stating “the reasons why sealing is necessary;” (2) explaining “why less drastic alternatives to sealing will not afford adequate protection;” (3) “[a]ddress[ing] the factors governing sealing of documents reflected in governing case law;” and (4) stating “whether permanent sealing is sought and, if not, stat[ing] how long the document should remain under seal and how the document should be handled upon unsealing.” LR 5.4(b).
14
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 150 Filed 09/29/18 Page 14 of 17

Fourth Circuit has also “conclude[d] that the First Amendment guarantee of access should not be extended to documents filed in connection with a motion to dismiss” because “[a] motion to dismiss tests only the facial sufficiency of the complaint [and] a court may not consider any materials outside the pleadings.” In re Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 67 F.3d 296, 1995 WL 541623, at *3 (4th Cir. 1995) (unpublished table decision). It is unclear, however, whether the common law or First Amendment right of access applies where, as here, materials are filed in connection with a motion to dismiss for lack of standing in which a court may consider evidence outside the Complaint, see Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999).
Even applying the more stringent First Amendment presumption of public access to the materials outlined above, the Court finds that SFFA has satisfied its burden, both substantively and procedurally. First, public notice of the parties’ instant requests to seal was given in October, 2017, November, 2017 and December, 2017, when the parties filed their motions and supporting briefs. (See ECF Nos. 108, 110, 111, 112, 116, 125.) No objection has since been raised. Next, SFFA requests sealing the identity of its Standing Members arguing that failure to do so “could subject [these individuals] to harassment and even threats of physical violence.” (ECF No. 110 at 5; see ECF No. 125 at 4.) In addition, SFFA argues that “publication of the donor information produced confidentially to [the University] would likely deter participation in and contributions to SFFA[,] [and] SFFA donors justifiably fear retaliation from other universities, graduate schools, prospective employers, and current employers, among others.” (ECF No. 110 at 6; see ECF No. 125 at 4.) The Court concludes that SFFA’s interests in protecting the identity of its Standing Members and preserving the confidentiality of sensitive donor information are sufficiently compelling to overcome the First
15
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 150 Filed 09/29/18 Page 15 of 17

Amendment presumptive right of access. See Bon Vivant Catering, Inc. v. Duke Univ., No. 1:13CV728, 2016 WL 7638284, at *2 (M.D.N.C. June 14, 2016) (“Courts often determine that the sensitive and confidential nature of financial information warrants the sealing of such materials.” (citing cases)). Further, SFFA’s proposed filings under seal, including proposed redactions, relate to a limited set of information and, thus, appears narrowly tailored to serve the compelling interests of confidentiality. The Court will, therefore, grant the parties’ motions to seal the following:
(i) Materials in the parties’ motion to dismiss briefs and accompanying exhibits related to the identity of its Standing Members, (ECF No. 108 ¶ 4; ECF No. 111 ¶¶ 3, 6; ECF No. 116 ¶ 5); and
(ii) SFFA’s initial and supplemental responses to the University’s Interrogatory No. 5 regarding the identity of “any Person or entity” that has contributed or donated to SFFA since its inception, (ECF No. 108 ¶ 5; ECF No. 111 ¶ 3; ECF No. 116 ¶ 6).
IV. CONCLUSION Based on the above, the Court concludes that the indicia-of-membership test is
inapplicable to SFFA. The Court further concludes that SFFA satisfies the requirements necessary to establish associational standing to sue on behalf of its members. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction will be denied. The Court further concludes that SFFA has carried its burden of satisfying the requirements to permanently seal the limited information outlined in Section III above. The Court will, therefore, permanently seal the unredacted materials filed in support of the parties’ briefing on the motion to dismiss, i.e., ECF Nos. 109, 109-1, 109-2, 114, 114-1 through 114-10, 117, 117-1 through 117-4. A redacted version of these materials, (ECF Nos. 107, 107-3, 107-6,
16
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 150 Filed 09/29/18 Page 16 of 17

113, 113-1, 113-7 through 113-14, 113-16, 115, 115-2 through 115-5), shall remain accessible to the public.
For the reasons stated herein, the Court enters the following: ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1), (ECF No. 106), is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to File Under Seal Pursuant to Local Rule 5.4(c), (ECF Nos. 108, 116), are GRANTED, and the unredacted versions of materials filed in support of Defendants’ briefing on the motion to dismiss, i.e., ECF Nos. 109, 109-1, 109-2, 117, and 117-1 through 117-4, is and shall be permanently sealed. A redacted version of these materials, (ECF Nos. 107, 107-3, 107-6, 115, and 115-2 through 115-5), shall be accessible to the public.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal, (ECF No. 111), is GRANTED, and the unredacted versions of materials filed in support of Plaintiff’s briefing on the motion to dismiss, i.e., ECF Nos. 114, 114-1 through 114-10, is and shall be permanently sealed. A redacted version of these materials, (ECF Nos. 113, 113-1, 113-7 through 113-14, 113-16), shall be accessible to the public.
This, the 29th day of September, 2018.
/s/ Loretta C. Biggs United States District Judge
17
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 150 Filed 09/29/18 Page 17 of 17

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS )

INC.,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA; )

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA )

BOARD OF GOVERNORS; JOHN C. )

FENNEBRESQUE, W. LOUIS BISSETTE,)

JR., JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY,

)

ROGER AIKEN, HANNAH D. GAGE, )

ANN B.GOODNIGHT, H. FRANK

)

FRAINGER, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS )

J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, )

JAMES L. HOLMES, JR., RODNEY E. )

HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G.

)

LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN )

B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, MARY )

ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN

)

MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION

)

MITCHELL, HARI H. MATH, ANNA )

SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, )

R. DOYLE PARRISH, THERENCE O. )

PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS,

)

ROBERT S. RIPPY, HARRY LEO SMITH, )

JR., J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A.

)

SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, )

RAIFORD TRASK, III, PHILLIP D.

)

WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY, as members )

of the Board of Governors in their official )

capacities; THOMAS W. ROSS, President )

of the University of North Carolina in his )

Official Capacity; UNIVERSITY OF

)

NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL; )

CAROL L. FOLT, Chancellor of the

)

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill )

in her official Capacity; UNIVERSITY OF )

NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF

)

1:14-cv-954

TRUSTEES; W. LOWRY CAUDILL,

)

ALSTON GARDNER, SALLIE SHUPING-)

RUSSELL, JEFFERSON W. BROWN, )

PHILLIP L. CLAY, HAYWOOD D.

)

COCHRANE, DONALD WILLIAMS )

CURTIS, CHARLES G. DUCKETT,

)

PETER T. GRAUER, KELLY

)

MATTHEWS HOPKINS, STEVEN

)

LERNER, DWIGHT D. STONE,

)

ANDREW HENRY POWELL, as members )

of the Board of Trustees in their Official )

Capacity; JAMES W. DEAN JR., Executive )

Vice Chancellor and Provost in his Official )

Capacity; STEPHEN M. FARMER,

)

Vice Provost, Enrollment, and

)

Undergraduate Admissions in his Official )

Capacity,

)

)

Defendants.

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

LORETTA C. BIGGS, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (“SFFA”), initiated this action against

Defendants, the University of North Carolina and members of its board of governors, the

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and members of its board of trustees and various

school officials (collectively “UNC-Chapel Hill”),1 alleging that the use of race in UNC-Chapel

Hill’s admissions process violates the United States Constitution and federal civil rights law.

(ECF No. 1 at 2.) Before the Court is a Motion to Intervene in Defense of UNC-Chapel Hill’s

Admissions Policy. (ECF No. 39.) For the reasons that follow, the Court grants permissive

intervention with conditions as outlined in this Opinion and Order.

1 The parties agreed to a Joint Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal as to all claims involving UNCChapel Hill Board of Trustees. (ECF No. 29 ¶¶ 1, 2.)
2

I. BACKGROUND SFFA filed its Complaint on November 17, 2014 and describes itself as “a coalition of
prospective applicants and applicants to higher education institutions who were denied admission to higher education institutions, their parents,” and others who support SFFA’s mission of “eliminating racial discrimination in higher education admissions.”2 (ECF No. 1 ¶ 11.) SFFA alleges that UNC-Chapel Hill’s admissions policy violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 because: (1) the policy “does not merely use race as a ‘plus’ factor in admissions decisions” but rather as a “dominant factor”; and (2) the policy uses racial preferences when there are available race-neutral alternatives capable of achieving diversity. (Id. ¶¶ 198–99, 205.) SFFA seeks a declaratory judgment that UNC-Chapel Hill’s admissions policy and “any use of race or ethnicity in the educational setting” violates the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI. (Id. at 64.)
On March 24, 2015, UNC-Chapel Hill filed its Answer denying that its admissions policy violates the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI and asserting various affirmative defenses. (ECF No. 30 ¶¶ 198–99, 205; id. at 114–15.) On May 4, 2015, the parties submitted their Rule 26(f) reports, and the Court on May 13, 2015 issued a Scheduling Order. (ECF Nos. 32, 33, 34.) Approximately six weeks later, on June 30, 2015, Proposed Intervenors filed the instant motion to intervene. (ECF No. 39 at 3.) The parties moved to stay the case on September 30, 2015 and the Court entered an Order on October 1, 2015, staying the
2 SFFA contends that it has one member who was denied admission to UNC-Chapel Hill’s 2014 entering class. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 13.)
3

proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 136 S. Ct. 2198 (2016). (ECF Nos. 64, 65.) Fisher was decided on June 23, 2016, and the stay was lifted on August 1, 2016. (ECF No. 69 at 2; see ECF No. 72 at 1.) II. MOTION TO INTERVENE
Proposed Intervenors describe themselves as four minority students who currently attend UNC-Chapel Hill and five high-achieving minority high school students who intend to apply for admission to UNC-Chapel Hill.3 (ECF No. 40 at 1.) With the exception of one student, all of the students who intend to apply to UNC-Chapel Hill are North Carolina residents currently enrolled in North Carolina high schools. (Id.) In their motion, Proposed Intervenors assert that they seek to ensure that “a full evidentiary record is created regarding[] UNC-Chapel Hill’s consideration of race and ethnicity as part of its holistic review of applicant’s files” in its admissions process. (ECF No. 39 at 1–2.) They further seek to ensure that any changes to UNC-Chapel Hill’s admissions process resulting from this litigation complies with their rights under the Constitution and Title VI. (Id. at 2.)
Proposed Intervenors do not seek to intervene as full parties in this litigation; rather, they seek to submit evidence related to two issues: (1) “the history of segregation and discrimination at UNC-Chapel Hill and in North Carolina” and (2) “the effect of UNC-Chapel Hill’s existing, and [SFFA’s] proposed, admissions processes on the critical mass of diverse students at UNC-Chapel Hill.” (ECF No. 56 at 2.) Proposed Intervenors believe evidence on these issues is important to the case and that UNC-Chapel Hill has signaled, through its
3 Because the high school applicant intervenors are minors, their claims are brought by their parents on their behalf.
4

Rule 26(f) report, that it may not present such evidence itself. (ECF No. 40 at 6.) Proposed Intervenors seek intervention as of right under Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the alternative, permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). (ECF No. 39 at 1– 2.) SFFA and UNC oppose intervention and argue that Proposed Intervenors should be allowed to participate as amicus curiae. (ECF Nos. 50, 51.) III. INTERVENTION UNDER RULE 24
Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides two avenues for intervention: intervention as of right pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2), and permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b). Fed R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2), (b). If intervention as of right is not warranted, a court may still allow an applicant to intervene permissively under Rule 24(b). Id. While both avenues of intervention are reviewed by appellate courts for abuse of discretion, the Court’s discretion in deciding whether to grant a motion to intervene as of right “is somewhat more constrained.” R & G Mortg. Corp. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 584 F.3d 1, 7–8 (1st Cir. 2009); see Stuart v. Huff, 706 F.3d 345, 349 (4th Cir. 2013). The Fourth Circuit has long held that “liberal intervention is desirable to dispose of as much of a controversy involving as many apparently concerned persons as is compatible with efficiency and due process.” Feller v. Brock, 802 F.2d 722, 729 (4th Cir. 1986) (quotation omitted); see also Friend v. REMAC Am., Inc., No. 3:12-CV17, 2014 WL 2440438, at *1 (N.D. W. Va. May 30, 2014) (analyzing motion to intervene “in the context of the Fourth Circuit’s policy favoring ‘liberal intervention’ and preventing the ‘problem of absent interested parties’” (quoting Feller, 802 F.3d at 729)).
5

A. Intervention as of Right A movant seeking to intervene as a matter of right must meet a four-part test before the court can allow intervention. Houston Gen. Ins. Co. v. Moore, 193 F.3d 838, 839 (4th Cir. 1999). A proposed intervenor must establish that: (1) the application to intervene is timely; (2) the proposed intervenor has an interest in the subject matter of the underlying action; (3) “the denial of the motion to intervene would ‘impair or impede’ the applicant’s ability to protect its interest; and (4) the applicant’s interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties to the litigation.” Id. If the movant fails to satisfy any one of the requirements, then intervention as of right is defeated. See id. at 839 (noting that all four of the requirements must be satisfied before intervention as of right is allowed). B. Permissive Intervention Rule 24(b) provides that “[o]n timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who . . . has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). Whether to allow permissive intervention is within the sound discretion of the district court. Smith v. Pennington, 352 F.3d 884, 892 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, when permissive intervention is allowed, the court “may specify the conditions on which it will allow the applicant to become a party.” 7C Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1913, at 493–95 (3d ed. 2007). In addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(3) requires that the court “consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3). However, “findings on those factors are not determinative of or sufficient to decide a permissive intervention motion.” McHenry v. Comm’r, 677 F.3d 214,
6

222 (4th Cir. 2012). A court may grant or deny permissive intervention irrespective of what it concludes in its discussion of delay and prejudice. Id. IV. ANALYSIS
As stated earlier, Proposed Intervenors have sought intervention as of right or, in the alternative, permissive intervention. Because the Court concludes that it will exercise its discretion to grant Proposed Intervenors permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), it need not address whether Proposed Intervenors are entitled to intervention as of right. See Carcaño v. McCrory, 315 F.R.D. 176, 178 (M.D.N.C. 2016); Capacchione v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 179 F.R.D. 505, 510 (W.D.N.C. 1998).
Neither SFFA nor UNC-Chapel Hill challenges Proposed Intervenors’ assertion that their defense of UNC-Chapel Hill’s admissions process shares common questions of law and fact with the current action. Thus, this Court need only examine whether Proposed Intervenors’ motion was timely and whether granting permissive intervention would cause undue delay or prejudice to UNC-Chapel Hill or SFFA.
A. Timeliness of Motion to Intervene A movant seeking permissive intervention must satisfy the threshold requirement of
having timely moved to intervene. Alt v. U.S. E.P.A., 758 F.3d 588, 591 (4th Cir. 2014). “The purpose of the [timeliness] requirement is to prevent a tardy intervenor from derailing a lawsuit within sight of the terminal.” Scardelletti v. Debarr, 265 F.3d 195, 202 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. South Bend Cmty. Sch. Corp., 710 F.2d 394, 396 (7th Cir. 1983)), rev’d on other grounds, Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1 (2002). To determine whether a motion is timely, a district court must assess three factors: (1) “how far the suit has progressed”; (2) “the prejudice
7

that delay might cause other parties”; and (3) “the reason for the tardiness in moving to intervene.” Id. at 203. “Each of these factors must be appraised in light of the posture of the case at the time the motion is made.” R & G Mortg. Corp., 584 F.3d at 7. The Fourth Circuit has emphasized that a district court has wide discretion in determining timeliness. Alt, 758 F.3d at 591.
Here, the relevant factors weigh in support of finding Proposed Intervenors’ motion timely. First, the case had not progressed beyond its early stages when Proposed Intervenors sought to intervene. Though Proposed Intervenors filed their motion on June 30, 2015, approximately seven months after SFFA filed its Complaint and three months after UNCChapel Hill filed its Answer, the Court adopted UNC-Chapel Hill’s Rule 26(f) report, beginning discovery in the case, only six weeks before Proposed Intervenors’ motion was filed. (See ECF Nos. 30, 34, 39.) The filing of the motion occurred one day before SFFA’s deadline to join additional parties or amend pleadings and also preceded UNC-Chapel Hill’s deadline on these issues. (ECF No. 33 at 5; ECF No. 34.) Further, the discovery deadline does not expire until December 1, 2017,4 providing adequate time for the discovery proposed by Intervenors to occur. The only other event that had taken place in the case at the time the motion to intervene was filed was the filing of the joint stipulation voluntarily dismissing certain defendants. (See ECF Nos. 29.)
4 The Court issued a new discovery Scheduling Order on August 1, 2016. Under this Order, “[a]ll discovery (fact and expert) shall be completed by December 1, 2017.” (ECF No. 72 at 1.) The Order requires that fact discovery be completed by June 30, 2017, and expert discovery be completed by December 1, 2017. (Id.)
8

Second, the Court considers the prejudice any resulting delay may cause the other parties. Prejudice related to the issue of timeliness is to “be measured by the delay in seeking intervention, not the inconvenience to the existing parties of allowing the intervenor to participate in the litigation.” Sierra Club v. Espy, 18 F.3d 1202, 1206 (5th Cir. 1994). Approximately a week after Proposed Intervenors filed their motion to intervene, UNCChapel Hill moved to stay the case pending the outcome of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, to which SFFA later consented.5 (ECF Nos. 46, 64.) The case was stayed until August 1, 2016. (See ECF No. 72 at 2.) In light of this sequence of events, and the early stage of the proceedings at the time the motion was filed, neither SFFA nor UNC-Chapel Hill is able to demonstrate prejudice or delay related to the timing of the motion to intervene. Moreover, since the motion to intervene was filed, the parties themselves have sought and obtained new discovery deadlines. (ECF No. 69 at 2–3.)
As to the third factor, i.e., why the motion was tardy, the Proposed Intervenors contend that it was only after UNC-Chapel Hill filed, and the Court adopted, UNC-Chapel Hill’s Rule 26(f) report, which set forth areas of intended discovery, that they realized that their interests would not be fully represented in the litigation. (ECF No. 40 at 6.) Proposed Intervenors further contend that intervention was necessary for a comprehensive defense of UNC-Chapel Hill’s consideration of race in the admissions process and to ensure that the admissions process resulting from this litigation complies with Proposed Intervenors’ rights under the Constitution and Title VI. Id.; see Sierra Club, 18 F.3d at 1206 (“[The appropriate] gauge of
5 The parties agreed to a partial stay in the proceedings on the condition that UNC-Chapel Hill produce certain documents by December 2015. (ECF No. 64 at 2.)
9

promptness is the speed with which the would-be intervenor acted when it became aware that its interests would no longer be protected by the original parties.”). The explanation offered by Proposed Intervenors for their delay in seeking intervention is reasonable.
The Court concludes that Proposed Intervenors’ motion to intervene was timely. B. Undue delay or prejudice to UNC-Chapel Hill or SFFA
SFFA and UNC-Chapel Hill raise the following concerns related to undue delay and prejudice: (1) intervention would require an extension of discovery deadlines; (2) intervention could add to the parties’ discovery burdens and complicate the discovery process; and (3) intervention would pose privacy concerns because SFFA has requested access to highly personal and sensitive materials, such as student applications for admission. (ECF No. 50 at 2–3; ECF No. 51 at 8–9.)
Proposed Intervenors respond that they seek only limited intervention to conduct discovery and present evidence on two issues: (1) “the history of segregation and discrimination at UNC-Chapel Hill and in North Carolina,” and (2) “the effect of UNCChapel Hill’s existing, and [SFFA’s] proposed, admissions processes on the critical mass of diverse students at UNC-Chapel Hill.” (ECF No. 56 at 2.) Of the discovery they intend to conduct, much of Proposed Intervenors’ evidence will take the form of declarations and expert testimony, rather than depositions and written discovery, (see ECF No. 40 at 6), and the discovery deadline is approximately eleven months away. Proposed Intervenors also state that they will complete their targeted discovery without disrupting the discovery schedule or resolution of this case. (See ECF No. 40 at 6; ECF No. 56 at 12–13.) The Court is not persuaded by SFFA and UNC-Chapel Hill’s articulated concerns that intervention would
10

unnecessarily prolong or complicate the discovery process.6 While the entrance of an additional party may complicate and even prolong a case, little evidence is presented here that it will do so, as the case is still in its early stages. See Grp. Health Inc. v. Blue Cross Ass’n, 587 F. Supp. 887, 892 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). Nor is the Court persuaded at this time that intervention would pose privacy concerns, particularly as it relates to Proposed Intervenors’ access to student applications. Proposed Intervenors have stated that they do not seek discovery on such information and will not need to be served with it. (ECF No. 56 at 14.) Thus, even if intervention by Proposed Intervenors may potentially add some degree of complication to the discovery process, this Court believes that such inconvenience is a small price to pay when issues of this magnitude are before the Court. Moreover, each of the concerns expressed by the parties can be addressed by placing conditions on Proposed Intervenors’ participation to ensure efficiency and due process.
SFFA argues that “denying permissive intervention will not harm Movants because they have no protectable interest at stake in this litigation and UNC-Chapel Hill will adequately protect any conceivable interest they do have.” (ECF No. 50 at 15.) However, while such factors must be considered by the Court when considering a grant of intervention as of right, they are neither required, nor dispositive of whether the Court, in its discretion, should grant permissive intervention. In determining whether to allow permissive intervention, courts may
6 UNC-Chapel Hill raises case management concerns if Proposed Intervenors are allowed intervention, suggesting that other groups likewise may seek intervention and that “[i]t might be difficult to justify inclusion of one group of students over another, but the potential complications from multiple intervenors (and their various lawyers) are substantial.” (ECF No. 51 at 2 n.1.) No other groups have sought intervention. Further, any such group would have to satisfy the requirements to support intervention. Thus, the Court is not persuaded that UNC-Chapel Hill’s concern is likely to occur.
11

consider whether such intervention will “contribute to full development of the underlying factual issues in the suit and to the just and equitable adjudication of the legal questions presented.” Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Educ., 552 F.2d 1326, 1329 (9th Cir. 1977); see L.S. ex rel. Ron S. v. Cansler, No. 5:11–CV–354–FL, 2011 WL 6030075, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 5, 2011). Proposed Intervenors contend that evidence of “segregation and discrimination in North Carolina and at the University, as well as evidence that a critical mass of diverse students has not yet been created on campus, is central to demonstrating the particularized need for the University to consider race as part of its admissions process.” (ECF No. 56 at 6.) Neither SFFA nor UNC-Chapel Hill argue that the specific evidence Proposed Intervenors seek to introduce will not contribute to the development of the factual and legal issues in this case. Thus, the Court finds that Proposed Intervenors’ participation in this case may significantly contribute to a full development of the legal and factual issues and ensure that all competing legal arguments are presented.
SFFA and UNC-Chapel Hill rely on the case, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, also brought by SFFA, in which the court denied intervention but allowed the proposed intervenors to participate as amicus curiae. 308 F.R.D. 39, 53 (D. Mass. 2015). As in that case, SFFA and UNC-Chapel Hill urge the Court to allow Proposed Intervenors to participate in this case as amicus curiae, claiming that such participation would be adequate. (ECF No. 50 at 1–2, 16; ECF No. 51 at 10.) However, the factual circumstances of the two cases are distinguishable. Unlike in Harvard College, where the proposed intervenors sought to participate as full-fledged parties to the action, 308 F.R.D. at 50, Proposed Intervenors here seek only limited participation in this action, (ECF No. 56 at 3). Further,
12

UNC-Chapel Hill, as a public institution, subject to state funding and regulations, is distinguishable from Harvard, a private institution. Over 80% of UNC-Chapel Hill’s entering freshman class must come from North Carolina,7 a state which has its own history of discrimination and segregation. Further, all of the applicant intervenors, except for one, are from North Carolina. (See ECF No. 40 at 2.) Thus, applicant intervenors seeking admission to UNC-Chapel Hill, their state’s flagship public institution, are differently situated from those students seeking admission to Harvard, see Harvard College, 308 F.R.D. at 47 (explaining that “there is little that distinguishes the proposed intervenors currently before the Court from any other minority student in America, or indeed, the world, who may potentially be affected by Harvard’s consideration or non-consideration of race and ethnicity in its admissions decisions”). For these reasons, the Court is not persuaded by SFFA and UNC-Chapel Hill’s reliance on Harvard College to support their argument that allowing movants to “weigh-in” through participation as amicus curiae is adequate, especially where the result of this litigation will have a direct and significant impact on North Carolinians’ access to UNC-Chapel Hill. See Wright, Miller & Kane, supra, § 1913, at 497 (“The exercise of discretion by a particular judge, responding to all the circumstances of a particular case, is not likely to be of much help to another judge faced with a different case.”). V. CONCLUSION
The Court concludes that Proposed Intervenors should be allowed permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). Their motion was timely filed, they assert claims and defenses
7 See Univ. of N. C. Policy Manual, § 700.1.3, available at, http://www.northcarolina.edu/apps/policy/index.php?pg=toc&id=s291.
13

that share common questions of law and fact with this action, and their involvement in this case will not unduly delay the proceedings or prejudice the existing parties. Permissive intervention is desirable and in line with the Fourth Circuit’s policy of favoring liberal intervention. Moreover, the Court will impose conditions on Proposed Intervenors’ participation in the case to mitigate the impact of certain concerns raised by SFFA and UNCChapel Hill.
For the reasons outlined herein, the Court enters the following: ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Proposed Intervenors’ Motion to Intervene in Defense of UNC-Chapel Hill’s Admissions Policy (ECF No. 39) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Proposed Intervenors’ motion to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a) is DENIED. However, their motion for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) is GRANTED. The following conditions apply to Proposed Intervenors’ participation in this case: (1) Proposed Intervenors must comply with the existing scheduling order; (2) Proposed Intervenors will not be permitted access to any confidential information that may be produced in discovery between the parties; and (3) Proposed Intervenors’ proposed discovery and presentation of evidence are limited to the following two issues: (a) the history of segregation and discrimination at UNC-Chapel Hill and in North Carolina; and (b) the effect of UNCChapel Hill’s existing, and SFFA’s proposed, admissions processes on the critical mass of diverse students at UNC-Chapel Hill. These conditions shall be complied with unless the Magistrate Judge determines that effective management of the case or the interest of justice dictates otherwise. Further, nothing in this Order shall be interpreted to restrict the Magistrate
14

Judge’s management of the discovery process including entering any orders necessary to ensure efficiency and due process.
This, the 13th day of January, 2017. /s/ Loretta C. Biggs
United States District Judge
15

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC., )

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al. )

)

Defendants.

)

1:14CV954

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER LORETTA C. BIGGS, District Judge.
Plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (“SFFA”) initiated this action against Defendants (collectively, the “University” or “UNC”), alleging that the University’s use of race in its undergraduate admissions process violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. (“Title VI”). (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Before the Court are: (i) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 152); (ii) SFFA’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 158); and (iii) Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal Pursuant to Local Rule 5.4(c), (ECF No. 170). For the reasons set forth below, the parties’ crossmotions for summary judgment will be denied and the motion to seal will be granted.

Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 1 of 31

I. BACKGROUND A. Parties
SFFA is a nonprofit corporation which states that its purpose is “to defend human and civil rights secured by law, including the right of individuals to equal protection under the law, through litigation and any other lawful means.” (ECF No. 163-1 at 9.) SFFA’s membership is comprised of over 22,000 members, including, among others, applicants who have applied for and were denied admission to UNC. (See id. at 9–10; ECF No. 113-9 at 2; ECF Nos. 1145, 114-6.)
Founded in 1789, UNC is “the nation’s first public university.” (ECF No. 154-1 ¶ 16; ECF No. 154-4 ¶ 7; see ECF No. 163-2 at 2.) As a public university, UNC “receives a portion of its funding from the State of North Carolina and enrolls students who receive financial assistance from the Federal Government.” (ECF No. 30 at 19.) UNC states that its “mission is to serve as a center for research, scholarship, and creativity and to teach a diverse community of undergraduate, graduate, and professional students to become the next generation of leaders.” (ECF No. 154-32 at 2.) According to the University, its “experience has shown that [it] cannot achieve this mission without enrolling a broadly diverse student body where everyone feels empowered to be, speak, and act as unique individuals.” (ECF No. 154-4 ¶ 10.)
B. UNC’s Admissions Process UNC’s undergraduate admissions policy is “broadly set by the Board of Trustees,” which, in turn, has “delegated authority over the establishment of policies and procedures for undergraduate admission to the University’s [Faculty] Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Admissions [(the ‘Advisory Committee’)].” (ECF No. 154-4 ¶¶ 15–16; ECF No. 155-4 at 4.)
2
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 2 of 31

On September 5, 2007, the Advisory Committee adopted a “Statement on the Evaluation of
Candidates for Admissions” which states, in part, as follows:
Just as there is no formula for admission, there is no list of qualities or characteristics that every applicant must present.
In shaping the [entering] class, we evaluate individual candidates rigorously, holistically, and sympathetically. We seek to assess the ways in which each candidate will likely contribute to the kind of campus community that will enable the University to fulfill its mission. This assessment requires not only that we note the achievements and potential of each applicant but also that we understand the context within which achievements have been realized and potential forged.
These comprehensive and individualized evaluations, taken together, . . . aim to draw together students who will enrich each other’s education, strengthen the campus community, contribute to the betterment of society, and help the University achieve its broader mission.
(ECF No. 155-2 at 2.)
For the class of 2022, UNC received approximately 43,500 applications for
undergraduate admission to a class of approximately 4,325 students. (ECF No. 154-4 ¶ 17;
ECF No. 154-7 ¶¶ 15–16.) “To enroll a class of this size, the University offered admission to
approximately 9,500 applicants, resulting in an overall admissions rate of approximately 22
percent.” (ECF No. 154-4 ¶ 17; see ECF No. 154-7 ¶ 16.)
UNC’s admission process for first-year applicants consists of two deadlines: (i) “a non-
binding1 early action [application] deadline” of October 15; and (ii) “a non-binding regular
1 “‘Non-binding’ means that applicants admitted at either deadline may choose freely whether to enroll and have until May 1 to do so; none are obligated to enroll if admitted or to withdraw any applications they may have submitted to other colleges or universities.” (ECF No. 154-7 ¶ 8.)
3
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 3 of 31

decision [application] deadline” of January 15. (ECF No. 154-7 ¶¶ 8–9.) All applicants are required to submit a Common Application which is “an application for undergraduate admission [that] may be used to apply to over 700 colleges.” (Id. ¶ 10.) Though not required, the Common Application offers applicants the option of providing demographic information, “such as gender, race, and ethnicity.” (Id.) In addition to the Common Application, applicants must also submit the following materials: (i) a Common Application essay;2 (ii) two short answers (consisting of 200–250 words) to prompted questions posed by UNC; (iii) “standardized test scores from either the SAT or the ACT”; (iv) a recommendation letter from at least one teacher who taught the applicant in a core academic subject; and (v) for applicants claiming North Carolina residency, a residency verification. (Id. ¶¶ 11, 14.) In addition, a counselor from the applicant’s school is required to submit the applicant’s official high school transcript, as well as a secondary school statement.3 (Id. ¶ 12.) Although not required, applicants may submit additional information for consideration including “additional letters of recommendation, resumes, artwork, music samples, or disability-related documentation.” (Id. ¶ 13.)
UNC’s Office of Undergraduate Admissions “has a staff of approximately 120 fulland part-time individuals.” (ECF No. 154-4 ¶ 5.) Each application submitted to UNC is “read in its entirety by at least one” of approximately 40 individuals—referred to as
2 The Common Application essay “is a 250–650 word response to one of seven prompts common to all schools accepting the Common Application.” (ECF No. 154-7 ¶ 11.) 3 “The secondary school statement provides information about an applicant’s high school[,] . . . the available curriculum,” and “information about how the applicant compares with the rest of [his or her] high school class through comparative statistics on class rank and grade point average . . . distribution.” (Id. ¶ 12.)
4
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 4 of 31

“application readers” or “readers”—consisting of both full time admissions office staff members and seasonal employees.4 (Id. ¶ 20; ECF No. 154-7 ¶ 17.) “All readers undergo annual training” by UNC’s admissions office staff and they “receive an up-to-date version of the University’s admissions policy document, known as the Reading Document.” (ECF No. 154-7 ¶¶ 20, 22; see ECF No. 154-4 ¶ 21; ECF No. 155-4.) According to UNC, readers are instructed “to consider each applicant as an individual based on all relevant factors revealed in his or her application in order to understand the candidate holistically and comprehensively.” (ECF No. 154-7 ¶ 24; see ECF No. 154-4 ¶ 22.) Also according to UNC, readers are trained to consider “an applicant’s self-disclosed race or ethnicity . . . as one factor among many based on a holistic review of all circumstances relevant to an individual applicant.” (ECF No. 1547 ¶ 25.) During the application review and evaluation process, readers continue to receive training and feedback. (Id. ¶ 26.)
During the evaluation process, readers are tasked with assessing each applicant using “more than forty criteria,” grouped roughly into the following eight categories:
(i) academic program; (ii) academic performance; (iii) standardized testing; (iv) extracurricular activity; (v) special talent; (vi) essay;
4 “[S]easonal readers are part-time employees who read and evaluate applications between October and March.” (ECF No. 154-7 ¶ 19.)
5
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 5 of 31

(vii) background; and (viii) personal attributes. (ECF No. 154-4 ¶ 23; ECF No. 154-7 ¶ 31; ECF No. 155-4 at 7–8.) “Though readers consider a candidate’s attributes and experiences across all of the [above] eight broad categories[,] . . . they assign scores for only five of them: academic program, academic performance, extracurricular activity, essays, and personal qualities.” (ECF No. 154-7 ¶ 32.) The remaining categories are considered “when assessing the candidate as a whole in the context of the entire applicant pool, but [UNC] do[es] not assign numerical scores for these elements.” (Id.) With respect to a candidate’s race or ethnicity, should a candidate choose to disclose this information on the application, it “may be considered at any stage of the evaluation process . . . within the context of an individual candidate.” (Id. at ¶ 42; see ECF No. 154-4 ¶ 24; ECF No. 155-4 at 8.) In addition, “[r]eaders are . . . trained to consider the socioeconomic circumstances of the applicant during the evaluation.”5 (ECF No. 154-4 ¶ 26.) Since 2014, UNC has divided its readers into two tiers—Tier 1 readers who “exclusively conduct initial evaluations of applications” and Tier 2 readers who “primarily conduct secondary evaluations of applications.” (ECF No. 154-7 ¶ 43.) Once received, applications are randomly assigned to Tier 1 readers who “will read [each] application in its entirety, assess the applicant across all the specified categories, and assign ratings for the five scored categories.” (Id. ¶ 44; see ECF No. 154-4 ¶ 27.) Then, the Tier 1 reader will either: (i) request
5 The following circumstances serve as indicators from which a reader becomes aware of an applicant’s socioeconomic status: (i) “whether a candidate received an application fee waiver”; (ii) “the candidate’s status as a first-generation college student”; (iii) “the occupation and employment status of the applicant’s parents or guardians”; and (iv) “whether the candidate attends a school where a high percentage of students receive free or reduced-price lunch.” (ECF No. 154-4 ¶ 26.)
6
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 6 of 31

a second read of an application; or (ii) recommend that the candidate be admitted or denied admission and provide a comment to support or explain the recommendation. (ECF No. 1547 ¶ 44; see ECF No. 154-4 ¶¶ 27–28.) “Tier 1 readers may also choose to waitlist an early action applicant.” (ECF No. 154-7 ¶ 44.) “Depending on the candidate’s residency and the Tier 1 reader’s recommended decision, the reader may forward the application for a Tier 2 reader’s review or the Tier 1 reader’s decision may become provisionally final.” (ECF No. 154-7 ¶ 45.)
Tier 2 readers are comprised of “experienced Admissions staff and experienced seasonal reviewers,” and they are responsible for “read[ing] applications requiring secondary review.” (ECF No. 154-7 ¶ 46; see ECF No. 154-4 ¶ 28.) Upon reading each application “in its entirety,” Tier 2 readers “make independent assessments of the candidate across all the specified categories.” (ECF No. 154-7 ¶ 46.) The Tier 2 reader will then input his or her own recommendation that a candidate be admitted, denied, or waitlisted. (Id.) “The Tier 2 reader’s recommended decision then becomes the provisionally final decision for that application.” (Id.) “Typically, Tier 1 and Tier 2 readers complete their review of applications three to four weeks prior to the release of admissions decisions for that particular admissions cycle.” (Id. ¶ 47.)
Next, “over the three-week period prior to [UNC’s] release of [final] admissions decisions to applicants,” each provisional decision made by Tier 1 and Tier 2 readers is subjected to another review, known as a School Group Review (“SGR”). (Id. ¶ 49 (citing ECF No. 156-12); see ECF No. 154-4 ¶ 31.) A yield assessment projection is prepared to predict the “number of spaces in the entering class that students who have been provisionally selected for admission are likely to fill.” (ECF No. 154-7 ¶ 51.) “Based on [this] predicted enrollment,
7
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 7 of 31

[during the SGR process, UNC] may adjust the number of applicants who will receive an offer
of admission.” (Id.) According to UNC, the goals of the SGR are: (1) to “allow[ ] the Office
of Undergraduate Admissions to . . . avoid over- or under-enrollment [by] adjust[ing] up or
down the total number of students provisionally designated for admission”; and (2) to “serve[
] as a quality-control measure.” (Id. ¶ 50; ECF No. 156-12 at 2.) The SGR review process is
also used to “ensur[e] a correct proportion of in- and out-of-state applicants.” 6 (ECF No.
154-7 ¶ 55.)
During the SGR process,
[e]ach SGR committee member7 receives an assigned group of high schools to review. Reports generated for each high school from which an applicant applied for admission to the University facilitate this review. These reports include which admissions cycle each applicant applied under, as well as each applicant’s provisional admission decision, class rank, grade point average, test scores, admissions ratings, residency status, legacy status, first-generation college status, recruited student-athlete status, and beginning in 2018, fee waiver status. These reports do not include a candidate’s race or ethnicity.
SGR committee members review these reports and make an initial determination regarding whether the listed factors, when viewed in their totality, appear consistent with the provisional admissions decision for each candidate. If the reviewer identifies an inconsistent decision, the reader will re-review the underlying application for admission and determine whether the decision should be changed.
6 In accordance with the policy of UNC’s Board of Governors, the University’s enrollment of out-ofstate students “cannot exceed 18 percent, meaning that at least 82 percent of the students in each incoming class must be residents of North Carolina.” (ECF No. 154-4 ¶ 18.)
7 The SGR committee is “comprised of experienced Tier 2 reviewers.” (ECF No. 154-7 ¶ 52; see ECF No. 156-12 at 2.)
8
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 8 of 31

(ECF No. 154-7 ¶¶ 53–54; see ECF No. 156-12 at 2.) Upon completion of the SGR process, “the yield assessment projections are updated to ensure the targeted numbers of in-state and out-of-state admit[tees] have been reached. This is typically completed at least two days before [UNC] release[s] final decisions to allow time for any additional required adjustments.” (ECF No. 154-7 ¶ 56.) Admission decisions are then released to each applicant. (ECF No. 154-4 ¶ 36.) “Candidates admitted to the University have until May 1 to accept their place in the incoming class . . . [whereas] [a]pplicants who are denied admission may appeal their admissions decisions.” (Id. ¶¶ 36–37.)8
C. Procedural History SFFA initiated the instant action on November 17, 2014 alleging that UNC “has intentionally discriminated against certain of Plaintiff’s members on the basis of their race, color, or ethnicity in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and [federal law]” by: (i) “employing an undergraduate admissions policy that does not merely use race as a ‘plus’ factor in admissions decisions in order to achieve student body diversity”; (ii) “employing racial preferences in undergraduate admissions when there are available race-neutral alternatives capable of achieving student body diversity”; and (iii) “employing an undergraduate admissions policy that uses race as a factor in admissions.” (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 198, 205, 215.)
8 UNC may also “offer a small subset of highly qualified applicants . . . a place on [its] Waiting List,” and should “spaces become available in the entering class, [UNC] may select Waiting List candidates to receive an offer of admission.” (ECF No. 154-7 ¶ 57; see ECF No. 154-4 ¶ 38.) For those candidates who accept a space on the waiting list, final decisions are made no later than June 30 of each year. (ECF No. 154-4 ¶ 39; ECF No. 154-7 ¶ 60.)
9
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 9 of 31

On October 25, 2017, UNC moved to dismiss SFFA’s Complaint, pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1), for lack of standing to sue. (ECF No. 106.) On September 29, 2018, this Court
entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the motion to dismiss.9 (ECF No. 150.)
Each party has filed cross-motions for summary judgment10 on each of SFFA’s claims, (ECF
Nos. 152, 158), and SFFA has filed a motion to seal certain documents submitted in
connection with the pending summary judgment motions, (ECF No. 170). The Court will
first address the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact
is “material” if it might affect the outcome of the litigation, and a dispute is “genuine” if the
evidence would permit a reasonable jury to find for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). When the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof
on an issue, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law if the nonmoving party
“fail[s] to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case.” Celotex Corp. v.
9 In its opening summary judgment brief, SFFA again argues that it has standing. (ECF No. 159 at 31.) UNC makes no argument in response. (See generally ECF Nos. 153, 175, 183.) However, as stated above, this Court has already found “that SFFA has standing to sue on behalf of its members.” (ECF No. 150 at 12.) Thus, pursuant to the “law of the case” doctrine, the Court’s decision on SFFA’s standing shall “continue to govern” this issue in subsequent stages in this case. United States v. Aramony, 166 F.3d 655, 661 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 815–16 (1988)). See Baron Fin. Corp. v. Natanzon, 509 F. Supp. 2d 501, 519 n.33 (D. Md. 2007) (“The Court understands that standing is an issue that is subject to review at all stages of the litigation[;] [h]owever, that legal principle does not defeat application of the law of the case doctrine.”).
10 In addition to having considered SFFA’s and UNC’s summary judgment briefing, the Court has also considered Defendant-Intervenors’ Brief in Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 179), and the Brief of Amici Curiae Arcelormittal USA LLC, et al. in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 168-1; see also ECF No. 174.)
10
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 10 of 31

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (noting that a “complete failure of proof” on an essential element of the case “renders all other facts immaterial”).
The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of “pointing out to the district court . . . that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Id. at 325. To defeat summary judgment, the nonmoving party must designate “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 324. The nonmoving party must support its assertions by citing to particular parts of the record, such as affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A); Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324.
The role of the court is not “to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter” but rather “to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249. A genuine issue for trial exists only when “there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.” Id. “If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Id. at 249–50 (citations omitted). When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the court must “resolve all factual disputes and any competing, rational inferences in the light most favorable” to the nonmoving party. Rossignol v. Voorhaar, 316 F.3d 516, 523 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting Wightman v. Springfield Terminal Ry. Co., 100 F.3d 228, 230 (1st Cir. 1996)). Further, where, as in this case, the Court has before it cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court reviews each of them separately to determine if either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rossignol, 316 F.3d at 523.
11
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 11 of 31

III. DISCUSSION A. Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment SFFA and UNC each seek summary judgment on each of Plaintiff’s three claims for
alleged violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment11 and Title VI.12 (See ECF Nos. 152, 158.) SFFA argues that “[n]o rational factfinder could conclude that the admissions system of [UNC] complies with the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI.” (ECF No. 159 at 5.) UNC, in turn, argues that “the undisputed material facts demonstrate that [its] admissions approach is constitutionally sound [in that] its practices are narrowly tailored to achieve the educational benefits of diversity recognized by the Supreme Court.” (ECF No. 153 at 10.)
The parties agree that because UNC’s consideration of race in undergraduate admissions is at issue, the Court must engage in a strict scrutiny analysis. (See id. at 30; ECF No. 159 at 32); Fisher v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 570 U.S. 297, 309 (2013) (“Fisher I”) (“Race may not be considered unless the admissions process can withstand strict scrutiny.”) “Strict scrutiny requires the university to demonstrate with clarity that its ‘purpose or interest is both constitutionally permissible and substantial, and that its use of the classification is necessary .
11 “The Equal Protection Clause provides that no State shall ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’” Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 326 (2003) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 2). 12 Title VI was designed to prohibit discrimination by organizations receiving federal funding. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. Specifically, the statute provides that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Id.
12
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 12 of 31

. . to the accomplishment of its purpose.’” Fisher v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 136 S. Ct. 2198, 2208 (2016) (“Fisher II”) (alteration in original) (quoting Fisher I, 570 U.S. at 309.).
As instructed by the Supreme Court, at the summary judgment phase, this Court “must assess whether the University has offered sufficient evidence that would prove that its admissions program is narrowly tailored to obtain the educational benefits of diversity.” Fisher I, 570 U.S. at 314. The University “must make a showing that its plan is narrowly tailored to achieve . . . the benefits of a student body diversity that ‘encompasses a . . . broa[d] array of qualifications and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a single though important element.’” Id. at 314–15 (second and third alterations in original) (quoting Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 315 (1978)).
1. Count I – Failure to use race as a “plus” factor in admissions decisions In seeking summary judgment on Count I, SFFA argues that “UNC may use race only to enroll a ‘critical mass of underrepresented minority students . . . so as to realize the educational benefits of a diverse student body.’” (ECF No. 159 at 32 (quoting Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 318 (2003).) According to SFFA, “[e]ven then, race may only be [used as] a ‘plus’ factor,” and “UNC is violating both preconditions.” (Id.) As an initial matter, SFFA appears to argue that “UNC must articulate a definition of ‘critical mass’ . . . with some precision,” (id. at 34), yet “UNC’s definition of critical mass could not be more elusory or amorphous,” and “[f]or this reason alone, UNC fails strict scrutiny,” (id. at 35). It is important to note, however, that “critical mass,” was a term used in the specific university admissions policies at issue in the Grutter and Fisher cases. See, e.g., Grutter, 539 U.S. at 318 (discussing the law school’s efforts “to ensure that a critical mass of underrepresented minority students
13
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 13 of 31

would be reached so as to realize the educational benefits of a diverse student body”); Fisher I, 570 U.S. at 301 (explaining that the University refers to its goal of “increasing racial minority enrollment on campus . . . as a ‘critical mass’”); Fisher II, 136 S. Ct. at 2219 (Alito, J. dissenting) (describing a proposal by the university to consider race and ethnicity in admissions which “stated that [the university] needed race-conscious admissions because it had not yet achieved a critical mass of racial diversity” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Supreme Court has not, however, defined the term nor has it held that a university must define, understand, or pursue a “critical mass” in order for a race-conscious admissions policy to survive strict scrutiny. See id. at 2216 (Alito, J. dissenting) (stating that the term “critical mass” “remains undefined”). Therefore, despite Plaintiff’s argument, UNC is not required to “articulate a definition of ‘critical mass,’” (ECF No. 159 at 34), in order for its admissions policy to survive strict scrutiny.
Rather, the Supreme Court has explained that the compelling interest that justifies a university’s consideration of race in admissions “is not an interest in enrolling a certain number of minority students;” instead, it is a broader interest in “obtaining ‘the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity.’” Fisher II, 136 S. Ct. at 2210 (quoting Fisher I, 570 U.S. at 310). The Court has recognized that “enrolling a diverse student body ‘promotes crossracial understanding, helps to break down racial stereotypes, and enables students to better understand persons of different races.’” Id. (quoting Grutter, 539 U.S. at 330). The Court has nonetheless cautioned that while “[i]ncreasing minority enrollment may be instrumental to these educational benefits, . . . [such a goal is not one] that can or should be reduced to pure numbers.” Id. Therefore, a university “cannot impose a fixed quota” or “specified
14
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 14 of 31

percentage” to define diversity. Id. at 2208. The Supreme Court has also recognized that “the
decision to pursue the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity . . . is, in
substantial measure, an academic judgment to which some, but not complete, judicial
deference is proper.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Fisher I, 570 U.S. at 310).
The record contains evidence from UNC in support of its objective in pursuing the
educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body including the following:
(i) UNC’s mission statement which states, in part, that UNC’s “mission is to serve as a center for research, scholarship, and creativity and to teach a diverse community of undergraduate, graduate, and professional students to become the next generation of leaders.” (ECF No. 154-32 at 2.)
(ii) UNC’s “Academic Plan,” dated July 2003, which states, in part, that “[d]iversity is critical to the University’s effectiveness in fully preparing students for the world. The University is committed to reflecting the rich and changing diversity of the state and nation. . . . The University should meet its responsibility to contribute to the diverse pool of outstanding leaders needed for business, education, government, health care, and nonprofits.” (ECF No. 154-35 at 2, 29.)
(iii) UNC’s 2011 “Academic Plan” which states, in part, that UNC’s “approach to equity and inclusion on campus must proceed from a moral conviction, a social commitment, and an institutional educational priority that recognize how much [UNC’s] learning environment is enhanced by students, faculty, and staff from multiple backgrounds and ethnicities interacting together.” (ECF No. 155-1 at 2, 47.)
(iv) A “2014-2015 Diversity Plan Report,” in which UNC states that it “strives to be a truly diverse community that is well-represented by individuals from different races, ethnicities, sexual/gender orientations, religions, and other sociocultural groups.” (ECF No. 155-12 at 2.)
15
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 15 of 31

(v) A declaration from UNC’s Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost, Robert Blouin, that UNC’s “commitment to diversity . . . reflects the University’s proven understanding and experience that diversity yields enlightening, lasting, and transformational educational benefits.” (ECF No. 154-1 ¶¶ 1, 17, 20.)
(vi) A 2016 UNC resolution enacted by UNC’s Faculty Council,13 titled “Faculty Council Resolution 2016-12— On Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion” which, among other things: (a) “recognized that diversity in the student body is a critical element of academic excellence and a deeply-held institutional value”; and (b) “reaffirm[ed] the faculty’s commitment to the values of diversity and inclusion.” (Id. ¶¶ 24–26; ECF No. 154-33.)
(vii) Testimony from Carol Folt, Chancellor of UNC, that because “questions of race and difference and socioeconomic political perspectives are some of the most important issues facing [UNC’s] students[,] . . . a critical part of their understanding and being a part of the world, is that they have an opportunity to learn in and be a part of a world that really represents the broad range of diversity that they’re going to experience.” (ECF No. 15413 at 5.)
(viii) A declaration from Winston Crisp, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at UNC, that “[w]ithout a diverse student body, we would be severely limited in our ability to help our graduates develop key skills and competencies that they need for their future success through their academic and co-curricular experiences.” (ECF No. 154-2 ¶ 1, 79.)
Such objectives, “as a general matter, mirror the ‘compelling interest’ [that the Supreme
Court] has approved in its prior cases.” Fisher II, 136 S. Ct. at 2211. However, while UNC’s
decision to pursue the educational benefits of a diverse student body is entitled to deference,
no such deference is owed when this Court determines whether its “use of race is narrowly
13 UNC’s Faculty Council serves as “the main faculty governance body [with] the primary responsibility for setting University-wide educational policies.” (ECF No. 154-1 ¶ 13.)
16
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 16 of 31

tailored to achieve the university’s permissible goals.” Id. at 2208 (citing Fisher I, 570 U.S. at 311). “The purpose of the narrow tailoring requirement is to ensure that the means chosen fit th[e] compelling goal so closely that there is little or no possibility that the motive for the classification was illegitimate racial prejudice or stereotype.” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 333 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, “[t]o be narrowly tailored, a raceconscious admissions program . . . may consider race or ethnicity only as a ‘plus in a particular applicant’s file,’ without ‘insulat[ing] the individual from comparison with all other candidates for the available seats.’” Id. at 334 (third alteration in original) (quoting Bakke, 438 U.S. at 315, 317). “When using race as a ‘plus’ factor in university admissions, a university’s admissions program must remain flexible enough to ensure that each applicant is evaluated as an individual and not in a way that makes an applicant’s race or ethnicity the defining feature of his or her application.” Id. at 336–37. As emphasized by the Supreme Court, “[t]he importance of this individualized consideration in the contest of a race-conscious admissions program is paramount.” Id. at 337.
UNC moves for summary judgment based on the testimony of its admissions officers, and training and policy documents which reflect that race is a flexible factor among many other factors in the university’s admissions process. (See ECF No. 153 at 15–20, 34–39; see also, e.g., ECF Nos. 154-4 ¶¶ 23–29; 154-7 ¶¶ 28–48; 155-4 at 7–9.) UNC also points to the findings and statistical analysis of its expert, Dr. Caroline Hoxby,14 showing that “an
14 Dr. Hoxby is “the Scott and Donya Bommer Professor in Economics at Stanford University, the Director of the Economics of Education Program at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution and the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.” (ECF No. 154-22 ¶ 7.)
17
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 17 of 31

applicant’s race/ethnicity is not the dominant factor in whether an applicant is admitted or rejected” by UNC. (ECF No. 154-22 ¶¶ 32–34, 53–56; see ECF No. 153 at 19–20; see generally ECF No. 154-23.) Based on her analysis of UNC applicant data from the 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 admissions cycles, Dr. Hoxby, concludes that the “data . . . demonstrate[ ] that UNC’s admissions process is holistic, qualitative, and examines students as individuals.” (ECF No. 154-22 ¶¶ 47, 52.)
On the other hand, in support of SFFA’s motion for summary judgment, it points to contrary expert evidence showing that “[r]ace is not a ‘plus’ factor that has a marginal effect on [an underrepresented minority applicant’s admission] chances,” but rather that race is “the predominant consideration” for under-represented minority applicants. (ECF No. 159 at 36– 38.) SFFA’s expert, Professor Peter S. Arcidiacono,15 concludes that “race plays a dominant role in individual admissions decisions.” (ECF No. 160-3 at 5.) Specifically, according to Professor Arcidiacono, his “statistical and econometric methods of analysis” reveal that, “[s]ignificant preferences are given to in-state [underrepresented minority] applicants over their non-[underrepresented minority] counterparts,” and “[r]acial/ethnic preferences are even larger for out-of-state [underrepresented minority students].” (ECF No. 160-1 at 6–7; see generally ECF Nos. 160-1; 160-2; 160-3).
The Court’s determination whether UNC considers race as a “plus” factor, or a dominant factor, in its admissions decisions is critically dependent on competing expert evidence regarding UNC’s admissions data, as well as the credibility of the testimony of UNC’s
15 Peter S. Arcidiacono is a Professor of Economics at Duke University whose “area of academic expertise is labor economics.” (ECF No. 160-1 at 5.)
18
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 18 of 31

admissions personnel regarding the manner in which an applicant’s race is factored into admissions decisions. At the summary judgment stage, however, “[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150–51 (2000) (quoting Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255)). Moreover, where the Court is confronted with “a classic duel between competing experts, . . . judging the credibility of experts falls squarely within the province of the jury.” Schwaber v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., Civ. No. JFM 06-0956, 2007 WL 4532126, at *4 (D. Md. Dec. 17, 2007); see Textron Inc. v. Barber-Colman Co., 903 F. Supp. 1570, 1579 (W.D.N.C. 1995) (stating that on summary judgment, “the Court cannot choose between [the parties’ conflicting expert] opinions”). Thus, based on the conflicting evidence in the record on this issue, including the parties’ expert evidence, the Court concludes that there exists a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether UNC considers race as more than a “plus” factor in its admissions decisions. The Court must, therefore, deny the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on Count I.
2. Count II – Race-neutral alternatives SFFA moves for summary judgment on Count II, contending that because “UNC has workable racial neutral-alternatives available to it[,] [i]t is thus both unnecessary and unlawful for UNC to use race in [its] admissions decisions.” (ECF No. 159 at 38.) Conversely, UNC argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on this count because “[t]he record establishes that the University has carried its burden and undertaken a good faith consideration of raceneutral alternatives.” (ECF No. 153 at 44.) UNC further contends that, having found no
19
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 19 of 31

race-neutral alternative “that could feasibly achieve the diversity or academic standards it seeks, the University has established that its current use of race is permissible.” (Id.)
Under a strict scrutiny analysis, the Court must “verify that it is ‘necessary’ for a university to use race to achieve the educational benefits of diversity.” Fisher I, 570 U.S. at 312 (quoting Bakke, 438 U.S. at 305). “This involves a careful judicial inquiry into whether a university could achieve sufficient diversity without using racial classifications.” Id. The Supreme Court has explained that “[a]lthough ‘[n]arrow tailoring does not require exhaustion of every conceivable race-neutral alternative,’ strict scrutiny does require a court to examine with care, and not defer to, a university’s ‘serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives.” Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting Grutter, 539 U.S. at 339–40). “Consideration by the university is of course necessary, but it is not sufficient to satisfy strict scrutiny: The reviewing court must ultimately be satisfied that no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity.” Id. “If a nonracial approach . . . could promote the substantial interest about as well and at tolerable administrative expense, then the university may not consider race.” Id. (first alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). UNC thus bears “the ultimate burden of demonstrating, before turning to racial classifications, that available, workable race-neutral alternatives do not suffice.” Id.
According to UNC, its evidence shows that it “has rigorously assessed potential raceneutral alternatives that might replace its current admissions process, and continues to do so.” (ECF No. 153 at 23 (citing ECF No. 154-4 ¶¶ 86, 107.) The University’s evidence includes the following:
20
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 20 of 31

(i) In 2007, UNC engaged in an “analysis of a socioeconomic race-neutral alternative [that] tested whether giving increased weight during the evaluation process to socioeconomic status would yield a class with similar diversity and academic credentials to the class that was actually admitted through our current admissions approach.” (ECF No. 154-4 ¶ 92.) Based on this analysis, the University “concluded that giving increased weight to socioeconomic status would not yield comparable levels of diversity and academic excellence to those attained through the University’s holistic review.” (Id. ¶ 93.)
(ii) In 2009, UNC’s Senior Assistant Director of Admissions, Jennifer Kretchmar, conducted an “extensive review of published studies of [nationwide] race-neutral admissions practices.” (Id. ¶ 94.) As a result of her review, Dr. Kretchmar concluded, in part, that “most research suggests that race-neutral alternatives . . . have been ineffective in reproducing the same level of diversity” as race-conscious policies. (ECF No. 155-6 at 2.)
(iii) In 2012, the Admissions Office considered a “Top 10 Percent Plan” in which UNC would offer admission to “every student in [its] applicant pool who ranked in the top 10 percent” of his or her high school class. (ECF No. 154-4 ¶ 95; see ECF No. 155-5.) The University’s analysis of its yield models showed that “[a] top-10-percent policy would have yielded a first-year class with a [slightly] higher percentage of underrepresented students: 16 percent vs. 15 percent under comprehensive and holistic review.” (ECF No. 155-5 at 2.) However, under such a policy, “more non-underrepresented students would have been denied admission . . . than under comprehensive and holistic review.” (Id.)
(iv) In 2013, the University convened a campus-wide “RaceNeutral Alternatives Working Group (the ‘Working Group’) . . . [which] was charged with investigating alternatives to race-conscious admissions practices, reviewing research to determine anticipated results of alternative approaches, and making appropriate recommendations.” (ECF No. 154-4 ¶ 97; see ECF No. 156-1.) The Working Group consisted of UNC personnel, including Admissions office members, as well
21
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 21 of 31

as faculty and staff members. (ECF No. 154-4 ¶ 97.) “The Working Group considered several race-neutral alternatives to admission and conducted a statistical analysis to determine the kind of student body several race-neutral alternatives would yield.” (Id. (citing ECF No. 156-1).) These alternatives included: (a) “granting automatic admission to all [North Carolina] public high school graduates ranked in the top 10% of their high school class”; (b) “granting automatic admission to the top 4.5% of all [North Carolina] public high school graduates”; (c) “incorporate[ing] socioeconomic diversity as part of the admissions criteria, granting automatic admission to the top 7.5% . . . students attending highpoverty schools, and the top 3% attending low poverty schools”; (d) using the “strength of high school curriculum rather than class rank as the criterion for admission” in addition to “a testing threshold of 1150 SAT or higher”; and (e) “granting automatic admission to all students earning a combined score of 1280 or higher on the Critical Reading and Math portions of the SAT.” (ECF No. 156-1 at 18–20.) Based on its analysis of these race-neutral alternatives, “the Working Group concluded that no race-neutral alternative would allow the University to achieve the same levels of academic excellence and diversity as [its] current practice of holistic review.” (ECF No. 154-4 ¶ 102; see also ECF Nos. 156-1, 156-3.)
(v) In February 2016, the University “formally established the Committee on Race-Neutral Strategies . . . [which] is charged with considering whether workable race-neutral strategies and admissions practices exist that would allow the University to achieve its full diversity objectives without sacrificing other components of its admissions criteria and objectives. The Committee’s work is ongoing.” (ECF No. 154-4 ¶ 104.)
In addition, UNC’s expert, Dr. Hoxby conducted assessments and simulations of race-
neutral alternatives potentially available to UNC and concluded that “there is no race-blind
alternative available to UNC that could be used, even in some practical combination with
another alternative, that would allow UNC to maintain its current level of academic
22
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 22 of 31

preparedness and racial diversity.” (ECF No. 154-24 ¶¶ 61–62; see also ECF No. 154-22 ¶¶ 92–257.)
SFFA’s expert, Richard D. Kahlenberg,16 has concluded, however, that “UNC failed to accurately consider or fully implement any of the numerous available race-neutral alternatives that could achieve the educational benefits of diversity.” (ECF No. 159 at 27 (quoting ECF No. 161-1 at 9.) According to Mr. Kahlenberg, the “numerous available raceneutral alternatives” available to UNC include:
(i) “Increasing socioeconomic preferences”; (ii) “Increasing financial aid”; (iii) “Adopting policies using geographic diversity, including
percentage plans and the use of zip codes and Census tract data”; (iv) “Reducing or eliminating preferences for legacies”; (v) “Increasing recruitment efforts”; (vi) “Increasing the admission of community college transfers”; (vii) “Eliminating the Early Acton admissions option”; and (viii) “Developing partnerships with disadvantaged high schools.” (ECF No. 161-1 at 9; see also ECF No. 161-2 at 24–40; ECF No. 161-3 at 31–44.) Mr. Kahlenberg also prepared “several tailor-made simulations” to “show that UNC has multiple race-neutral alternatives available to achieve the educational benefits of diversity while
16 Mr. Kahlenberg is “a senior fellow at The Century Foundation, a non-profit, non-partisan research organization founded in 1919.” (ECF No. 161-1 at 5.)
23
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 23 of 31

maintaining the institution’s high standards of academic excellence.” (ECF No. 161-3 at 65, 68–90; see also ECF No. 161-1 at 105–119; ECF No. 161-2 at 66–133.)
Here again, as with Count I, there is a genuine dispute between the parties as to whether UNC has engaged in a “serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives,” and that such alternatives “do not suffice.” Fisher I, 570 U.S. at 312 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court’s determination of this issue would require that the Court weigh the evidence in the record, including the conflicting expert evidence, and draw conclusions with respect to the credibility of witnesses. As previously discussed, at this stage in the proceedings, “[i]t is not the role of the court to weigh expert credibility, and where qualified experts on both sides of the case offer competing opinions[,] . . . summary judgment is improper.” Viva Healthcare Packaging USA Inc. v. CTL Packaging USA Inc., 197 F. Supp. 3d 837, 863 (W.D.N.C. 2016); see Boyd v. Armstrong, Civ. A. No. ELH-17-2849, 2019 WL 1440876, *at 9 (D. Md. Mar. 29, 2019) (“[I]n the face of conflicting evidence, such as competing affidavits, summary judgment ordinarily is not appropriate because it is the function of the factfinder to resolve factual disputes, including matters of witness credibility.”). The Court will therefore deny the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on Count II.
24
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 24 of 31

3. Count III – Any use of race as a factor in admissions Although each party moves for summary on each of the three counts alleged by SFFA, (see ECF No. 152 at 1; ECF No. 158 at 2), neither party appears to advance specific arguments

as to why it should be granted summary judgment on Count III which alleges that any use of race as a factor in UNC’s admissions decisions violates federal law. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 214–227.)
As previously discussed, however, (and as acknowledged by both parties)17 under

existing Supreme Court precedent, a university “may institute a race-conscious admissions program as a means of obtaining ‘the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity.’” Fisher II, 136 S. Ct. at 2210 (quoting Fisher I, 570 U.S. at 310). The Supreme Court

has “made clear” that such a goal is a “compelling interest that justifies consideration of race in college admissions.” Id. Accordingly, UNC’s use of race in its admissions decisions would

be constitutionally permissible if it is narrowly tailored to achieve this compelling interest. However, in light of the parties’ failure to specifically address this Count, the Court will deny the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on Count III.

B. Motion to Seal The Court will next address Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal Pursuant to Local Rule 5.4(c), (ECF No. 170). Plaintiff moves this Court to file under the following materials

under seal: (i)

portions of Exhibit 16, filed in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 163-16), “which is an instant messaging conversation between [UNC] employees,” (ECF No. 170 ¶ 4);

17 (See ECF No. 153 at 30–32; ECF No. 159 at 32.)
25
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 25 of 31

(ii) portions of Exhibit 31, filed in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 163-31), “which is a UNC applicant’s transcript,” (ECF No. 170 ¶ 6); and
(iii) the entirety of Exhibit 33, filed in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 163-33), “which is a ‘School Group Review’ document containing the statistics and ratings of UNC applicants from a particular high school along with several annotations,” (ECF No. 170 ¶ 8).
“It is well settled that the public and press have a qualified right of access to judicial documents and records filed in civil and criminal proceedings.” Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 265 (4th Cir. 2014). “The right of public access springs from the First Amendment and the common-law tradition that court proceedings are presumptively open to public scrutiny.” Id. “The common law,” however, “does not afford as much substantive protection to the interests of the press and the public as does the First Amendment.” Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988). “The common-law presumptive right of access extends to all judicial documents and records, and the presumption can be rebutted only by showing that ‘countervailing interests heavily outweigh the public interests in access.’” Doe, 749 F.3d at 265–66 (quoting Rushford, 846 F.2d at 253). The First Amendment presumptive right of access, in contrast, extends “only to particular judicial records and documents.” Id. at 266. Further, the First Amendment presumptive right of access may only be restricted upon a showing that such a restriction is “necessitated by a compelling government interest and . . . narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
26
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 26 of 31

“When presented with a request to seal18 judicial records or documents, a district court
must comply with certain substantive and procedural requirements.” Va. Dep’t of State Police v.
Wash. Post, 386 F.3d 567, 576 (4th Cir. 2004). Substantively, a district court must “first
‘determine the source of the right of access with respect to each document.’” Doe, 749 F.3d
at 266 (quoting Va. Dep’t of State Police, 386 F.3d at 576). The Fourth Circuit has “squarely
held that the First Amendment right of access attaches to materials filed in connection with a
summary judgment motion.” Id. at 267. Therefore, the First Amendment right of access
applies in this case, as the documents which are the subject of the motion to seal were filed
with the Court in support of SFFA’s motion for summary judgment.
Procedurally, a district court presented with a sealing request must
(1) provide public notice of the sealing request and a reasonable opportunity for the public to voice objections to the motion; (2) consider less drastic alternatives to closure; and (3) if it determines that full access is not necessary, it must state its reasons—with specific findings—supporting closure and its rejections of less drastic alternatives.
Id. at 272. Local Rule 5.4 outlines similar requirements.19 LR 5.4. The burden rests on the
party seeking to keep information sealed. Va. Dep’t of State Police, 386 F.3d at 575. Here, UNC,
as the party seeking to maintain the confidentiality of the documents at issue, bears this
burden.
18 Courts construe a request to redact a document as a request to seal in part. ATI Indus. Automation, Inc. v. Applied Robotics, Inc., 801 F. Supp. 2d 419, 424–25 (M.D.N.C. 2011) (collecting cases). 19 These requirements are: (1) stating “the reasons why sealing is necessary;” (2) explaining “why less drastic alternatives to sealing will not afford adequate protection;” (3) “[a]ddress[ing] the factors governing sealing of documents reflected in governing case law;” and (4) stating “whether permanent sealing is sought and, if not, stat[ing] how long the document should remain under seal and how the document should be handled upon unsealing.” LR 5.4(b).
27
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 27 of 31

Considering both the substantive and procedural requirements necessary to rebut the First Amendment presumption of public access to the document in question, UNC has satisfied its burden. First, public notice of the request to seal presently before the Court was provided in January, 2019 and February, 2019, when SFFA filed the motion to seal and UNC filed its supporting brief. (See ECF Nos. 170, 173.) Next, as to Exhibit 16, UNC seeks “the sealing of a limited part” of this document which conceals the names and contact information of UNC’s employees. (ECF No. 173 at 5.) Indeed, “the interest in protecting the personal privacy of [a] [d]efendant’s employees and former employees represents a compelling interest sufficient to overcome both the common-law and the First Amendment right of access to some of the information . . . filed in connection with [SFFA’s] summary judgment motion.” Corl v. Burlington Coat Factory of N.C., LLC, No. 1:10CV406, 2011 WL 2607942, at *3 (M.D.N.C. June 30, 2011).
With respect to Exhibits 31 and 33, UNC “seeks to maintain under seal an applicant’s high school transcript . . . and a document created during the course of the University’s admissions process that contains information about a small set of applicants from a specific high school along with several annotations.” (ECF No. 173 at 2; see ECF No. 170 ¶¶ 6, 8.) The Court finds that UNC’s interest in preserving the confidentiality of the sensitive personal information regarding applicants who are non-parties to this action is sufficiently compelling to overcome the First Amendment presumptive right of access. See Robinson v. Bowser, No. 1:12CV301, 2013 WL 3791770, at *4 (M.D.N.C. July 19, 2013) (explaining that the interest in keeping “sensitive personal material regarding third parties[ ] private outweighs the First Amendment right of access”); Nettles v. Farmers Ins. Exch., No. C06–5164RJB, 2007 WL
28
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 28 of 31

858060, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 16, 2007) (granting motion to seal in part because information at issue related to nonparties “who have not sought to place [their] private information in the public sphere”); Vassiliades v. Israely, 714 F. Supp. 604, 605 (D. Conn. 1989) (“Both the common law and the [F]irst [A]mendment protect the public’s right of access to court documents. . . . The right of access, however, is not absolute. It can be overcome by a showing that placing the documents in question under seal will further other substantial interests, for example, . . . a third party’s privacy interests.”).
Further, as UNC correctly argues, the substantial interest protected by “the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (‘FERPA’) . . . and North Carolina law, including N.C. Gen. Stat. § 132-1 et seq.[,]. . . strongly weigh[ ] in favor of granting the motion to seal with respect to Exhibit 31 (the high school transcript of an applicant who matriculated at the University).” (ECF No. 173 at 3 (citing Rosenfeld v. Montgomery Cty. Pub. Schs., 25 F. App’x 123, 132 (4th Cir. 2001) (“There is no doubt that the district court should consider FERPA in making its determination whether sealing of the documents in question is appropriate under the applicable First Amendment standard.”)).)
The Court also finds that the proposed redactions of Exhibits 16 and 31, which appear narrowly tailored to serve the compelling interests, is a less drastic alternative to sealing the entire documents. Additionally, as to Exhibit 33, given the nature of the information contained in this document—namely, “the statistics and ratings of UNC applicants from a particular high school, along with several annotations,” (ECF No. 170 ¶ 8)—the Court finds that permanently sealing the contents of the document is warranted. The Court will, therefore,
29
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 29 of 31

grant Plaintiff’s motion to seal portions of Exhibits 16 and 31, as well as Exhibit 33 in its entirety. IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the above, the Court concludes that there are genuine issues of material fact as to each of the three counts alleged in SFFA’s Complaint which preclude judgment as a matter of law on behalf of either party. Accordingly, the Court will deny the parties’ crossmotions for summary judgment on each count. The Court further concludes that UNC has carried its burden of satisfying the requirements to permanently seal the limited information outlined above. The Court will, therefore, permanently seal the unredacted material filed in support of SFFA’s motion for summary judgment, i.e., ECF Nos. 171, 171-1, 171-2. A redacted version of these materials, (ECF Nos. 163-16, 163-31, 163-33, 170-1, 170-2, 170-3), shall remain accessible to the public.
For the reasons stated herein, the Court enters the following:
[ORDER TO FOLLOW ON NEXT PAGE]
30
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 30 of 31

ORDER IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 152), is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that SFFA’s Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56, (ECF No. 158), is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal Pursuant to Local Rule 5.4(c) is GRANTED, and Exhibits 16, 31 and 33 (ECF Nos. 171, 171-1, 171-2), are and shall be permanently sealed. A redacted version of these materials, (ECF Nos. 16316, 163-31, 163-33, 170-1, 170-2, 170-3), shall remain accessible to the public. This, the 30th day of September 2019.
/s/ Loretta C. Biggs United States District Judge
31
Case 1:14-cv-00954-LCB-JLW Document 190 Filed 09/30/19 Page 31 of 31

 
 18BD,CASREF,MASTER,TRIAL
U.S. District Court North Carolina Middle District (NCMD) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:14−cv−00954−LCB−JLW

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. UNIVERSITY Date Filed: 11/17/2014

OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al

Jury Demand: Plaintiff

Assigned to: JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS

Nature of Suit: 448 Civil Rights: Education

Referred to: MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER

Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Cause: 42:1981 Civil Rights

Plaintiff

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.

represented by ANDREW ALLEN FREEMAN BELL DAVIS & PITT, P.A. POB 21029 WINSTON−SALEM, NC 27120−1029 336−714−4156 Fax: 336−722−8153 Email: afreeman@belldavispitt.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DANIEL ALAN M. RULEY BELL DAVIS & PITT, P.A. POB 21029 WINSTON−SALEM, NC 27120−1029 336−714−4147 Fax: 336−722−8153 Email: aruley@belldavispitt.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

THOMAS R. MCCARTHY CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC 3033 WILSON BLVD., STE. 700 ARLINGTON, VA 22201 703−243−9423 Email: tom@consovoymccarthy.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

BRYAN K. WEIR CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC 1600 WILSON BOULEVARD, STE 700 ARLINGTON, VA 22209 703−243−9423 Fax: 703−243−9423 Email: bryan@consovoymccarthy.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOHN MICHAEL CONNOLLY CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC 3033 WILSON BLVD., STE. 700 ARLINGTON, VA 22201 703−243−9423 Email: mike@consovoymccarthy.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MICHAEL H. PARK CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC 745 FIFTH AVE. SUITE 500 NEW YORK, NY 10151

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 1 of 97

212−247−8006 Fax: 703−243−9423 Email: park@consovoymccarthy.com TERMINATED: 05/13/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PATRICK STRAWBRIDGE CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC TEN POST OFFICE SQUARE, 8TH FLOOR, PMB, #706 BOSTON, MA 02109 617−227−0548 Fax: 703−243−9423 Email: patrick@consovoymccarthy.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
WILLIAM S. CONSOVOY CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC 3033 WILSON BLVD., STE. 700 ARLINGTON, VA 22201 703−243−9423 Email: will@consovoymccarthy.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
WILLIAM ELLIS BOYLE KNOTT & BOYLE, PLLC 4800 SIX FORKS RD., STE. 100 RALEIGH, NC 27609 919−783−5900 Fax: 919−783−9650 Email: ellis@knottboyle.com TERMINATED: 07/09/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA

represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP 155 N. WACKER DR., 27TH FLOOR CHICAGO, IL 60606 312−407−0700 Fax: 312−407−0411 Email: patrick.fitzgerald@skadden.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN N. C. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE POB 629 RALEIGH, NC 27602−0629 919−716−6920 Fax: 919−716−6764 Email: sbrennan@ncdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 155 NORTH WACKER DRIVE CHICAGO, IL 60606 312−407−0903

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 2 of 97

Defendant

Fax: 312−827−9373 Email: amy.vangelder@skadden.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP 4 TIMES SQUARE NEW YORK, NY 10036 212−735−3717 Email: lara.flath@skadden.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP 155 N. WACKER DR., 27TH FLOOR CHICAGO, IL 60606 312−407−0837 Fax: 312−827−9451 Email: marianne.combs@skadden.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN N. C. DEPT. OF JUSTICE POB 629 RALEIGH, NC 27602−0629 919−716−6920 Fax: 919−716−6764 Email: mtulchin@ncdoj.gov TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER U. S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN COURTHOUSE 219 S. DEARBORN STREET CHICAGO, IL 60604 312−435−5850 Email: michael.scudder@skadden.com TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN N. C. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE POB 629 RALEIGH, NC 27602−0629 919−716−6659 Fax: 919−716−6764 Email: nsullivan@ncdoj.gov TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON N. C. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE POB 629 RALEIGH, NC 27602−0629 919−716−6566 Email: tlhenderson@ncdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 3 of 97

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS
Defendant JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE

represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 4 of 97

Defendant W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR.
Defendant JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY

MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address)

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 5 of 97

Defendant ROGER AIKEN

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address)

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 6 of 97

Defendant HANNAH D. GAGE
Defendant ANN B. GOODNIGHT

TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 7 of 97

Defendant H. FRANK FRAINGER

STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 8 of 97

Defendant PETER D. HANS
Defendant THOMAS J. HARRELSON

MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 9 of 97

Defendant HENRY W. HINTON

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 10 of 97

Defendant JAMES L. HOLMES, JR.
Defendant RODNEY E. HOOD

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 11 of 97

Defendant W. MARTY KOTIS, III

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 12 of 97

Defendant G. LEROY LAIL
Defendant SCOTT LAMPE

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 13 of 97

Defendant STEVEN B. LONG

AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 14 of 97

Defendant JOAN G. MACNEILL
Defendant MARY ANN MAXWELL

NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address)

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 15 of 97

Defendant W. EDWIN MCMAHAN

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address)

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 16 of 97

Defendant W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL
Defendant HARI H. MATH

TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 17 of 97

Defendant ANNA SPANGLER NELSON

LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 18 of 97

Defendant ALEX PARKER
Defendant R. DOYLE PARRISH

TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address)

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 19 of 97

Defendant THERENCE O. PICKETT

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 20 of 97

Defendant DAVID M. POWERS
Defendant ROBERT S. RIPPY

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 21 of 97

Defendant HARRY LEO SMITH, JR.

MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 22 of 97

Defendant J. CRAIG SOUZA
Defendant GEORGE A. SYWASSINK

represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address)

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 23 of 97

Defendant RICHARD F. TAYLOR
Defendant

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 24 of 97

RAIFORD TRASK, III
Defendant PHILLIP D. WALKER

represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 25 of 97

Defendant LAURA I. WILEY
Defendant THOMAS W. ROSS President of the University of North

MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address)

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 26 of 97

Carolina in his Official Capacity
Defendant UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address)

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 27 of 97

Defendant CAROL L. FOLT Chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in her Official Capacity
Defendant UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF TRUSTEES TERMINATED: 03/20/2015

TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 28 of 97

Defendant W. LOWRY CAUDILL TERMINATED: 03/20/2015
Defendant ALSTON GARDNER TERMINATED: 03/20/2015
Defendant SALLIE SHUPING−RUSSELL TERMINATED: 03/20/2015

MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address)

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 29 of 97

Defendant JEFFERSON W. BROWN TERMINATED: 03/20/2015
Defendant PHILLIP L. CLAY TERMINATED: 03/20/2015
Defendant HAYWOOD D. COCHRANE TERMINATED: 03/20/2015

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 30 of 97

Defendant DONALD WILLIAMS CURTIS TERMINATED: 03/20/2015
Defendant CHARELS G. DUCKETT TERMINATED: 03/20/2015
Defendant PETER T. GRAUER TERMINATED: 03/20/2015

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 31 of 97

Defendant KELLY MATTHEWS HOPKINS TERMINATED: 03/20/2015
Defendant STEVEN LERNER TERMINATED: 03/20/2015
Defendant DWIGHT D. STONE TERMINATED: 03/20/2015

MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 32 of 97

Defendant ANDREW HENRY POWELL TERMINATED: 03/20/2015
Defendant JAMES W. DEAN, JR. Executive Vice Chandellor and Provost in his Official Capacity

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 33 of 97

Defendant STEPHEN M. FARMER Vice Provost, Enrollment, and Undergraduate Admissions in his Official Capacity
V. Intervenor Defendant CECILIA POLANCE

TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AMY L. VAN GELDER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LARA A. FLATH (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARIANNE H. COMBS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW T. TULCHIN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/14/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NORA F. SULLIVAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
TAMIKA HENDERSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by CHRISTINE C. BISCHOFF NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER 224 S. DAWSON ST. RALEIGH, NC 27601 919−856−3195 Email: christine@ncjustice.org TERMINATED: 03/21/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GLENN SCHLACTUS RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX PLLC 1225 19TH STREET NW

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 34 of 97

WASHINGTON, DC 20036 202−728−1888 Fax: 202−728−0848 Email: gschlactus@relmanlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACK HOLTZMAN NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER POB 28068 RALEIGH, NC 27611−8068 919−856−2165 Fax: 919−856−2175 Email: jack@ncjustice.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURA J. GAZTAMBIDE−ARANDES RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX PLLC 1225 19TH ST., NW, STE. 600 WASHINGTON, DC 20036 202−728−1888 Fax: 202−728−0848 Email: larandes@relmanlaw.com TERMINATED: 05/09/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
REED N COLFAX RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX PLLC 1225 19TH ST., NW, STE. 600 WASHINGTON, DC 20036 202−728−1888 Fax: 202−728−0848 Email: rcolfax@relmanlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SASHA M. SAMBERG−CHAMPION RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX PLLC 1225 19TH ST., NW, STE. 600 WASHINGTON, DC 20036 202−728−1888 Fax: 202−728−0848 Email: ssamberg−champion@relmanlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
BRENDA L. SHUM LAWYERS' COMMITTEE CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 1401 NEW YORK AVENUE NW., STE. 400 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 202−662−8332 Fax: 202−783−0857 Email: bshum@lawyerscommittee.org TERMINATED: 05/09/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DAVID G. HINOJOSA LAWYERS' COMMITTEE CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 1500 K ST., NW, STE. 900 WASHINGTON, DC 20005
Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 35 of 97

Intervenor Defendant LUIS ACOSTA

202−662−8600 Email: dhinojosa@lawyerscommittee.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EMILY P. TURNER NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER 224 S. DAWSON ST. RALEIGH, NC 27611 919−861−2073 Fax: 919−856−2175 Email: emilyt@ncjustice.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GENEVIEVE B. TORRES THE LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 1500 K. STREET, NW SUITE 900 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 202−662−8326 Fax: 202−783−0857 Email: gbonadies@lawyerscommittee.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JAMIE L. CROOK RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX 1225 19TH STREET NW WASHINGTON, DC 20011 202−728−1888 Fax: 202−728−0848 Email: jcrook@aclunc.org TERMINATED: 08/23/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JON M. GREENBAUM LAWYERS' COMMITTEE CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 1401 NEW YORK AVENUE NW., STE. 400 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 202−662−8315 Fax: 202−783−0857 Email: jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by CHRISTINE C. BISCHOFF (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/21/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GLENN SCHLACTUS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACK HOLTZMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURA J. GAZTAMBIDE−ARANDES (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/09/2019

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 36 of 97

Intervenor Defendant STAR WINGATE−BEY

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
REED N COLFAX (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SASHA M. SAMBERG−CHAMPION (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
BRENDA L. SHUM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/09/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DAVID G. HINOJOSA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EDWARD G. CASPAR LAWYERS' COMMITTEE CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 1500 K ST., NW, STE. 900 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 202−662−8390 Fax: 202−783−0857 Email: ecaspar@lawyerscommittee.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EMILY P. TURNER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GENEVIEVE B. TORRES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JAMIE L. CROOK (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JON M. GREENBAUM (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by CHRISTINE C. BISCHOFF (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/21/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GLENN SCHLACTUS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACK HOLTZMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 37 of 97

Intervenor Defendant LAURA ORNELAS

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURA J. GAZTAMBIDE−ARANDES (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/09/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
REED N COLFAX (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SASHA M. SAMBERG−CHAMPION (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
BRENDA L. SHUM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/09/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DAVID G. HINOJOSA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EMILY P. TURNER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GENEVIEVE B. TORRES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JAMIE L. CROOK (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JON M. GREENBAUM (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by CHRISTINE C. BISCHOFF (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/21/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GLENN SCHLACTUS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACK HOLTZMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURA J. GAZTAMBIDE−ARANDES (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/09/2019

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 38 of 97

Intervenor Defendant
KEVIN MILLS on behalf of Q.M.

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
REED N COLFAX (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SASHA M. SAMBERG−CHAMPION (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
BRENDA L. SHUM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/09/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DAVID G. HINOJOSA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EMILY P. TURNER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GENEVIEVE B. TORRES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JAMIE L. CROOK (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JON M. GREENBAUM (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by CHRISTINE C. BISCHOFF (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/21/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GLENN SCHLACTUS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACK HOLTZMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURA J. GAZTAMBIDE−ARANDES (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/09/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
REED N COLFAX (See above for address)

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 39 of 97

Intervenor Defendant
ANGIE MILLS on behalf of Q.M.

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SASHA M. SAMBERG−CHAMPION (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
BRENDA L. SHUM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/09/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EMILY P. TURNER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GENEVIEVE B. TORRES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JAMIE L. CROOK (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JON M. GREENBAUM (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by CHRISTINE C. BISCHOFF (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/21/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GLENN SCHLACTUS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACK HOLTZMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURA J. GAZTAMBIDE−ARANDES (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/09/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
REED N COLFAX (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SASHA M. SAMBERG−CHAMPION (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
BRENDA L. SHUM

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 40 of 97

Intervenor Defendant CHRISTOPHER JACKSON

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/09/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EMILY P. TURNER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GENEVIEVE B. TORRES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JAMIE L. CROOK (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JON M. GREENBAUM (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by CHRISTINE C. BISCHOFF (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/21/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GLENN SCHLACTUS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACK HOLTZMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURA J. GAZTAMBIDE−ARANDES (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/09/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
REED N COLFAX (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SASHA M. SAMBERG−CHAMPION (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
BRENDA L. SHUM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/09/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EMILY P. TURNER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GENEVIEVE B. TORRES

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 41 of 97

Intervenor Defendant
JULIA NIEVES on behalf of I.N.

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JAMIE L. CROOK (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JON M. GREENBAUM (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by CHRISTINE C. BISCHOFF (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/21/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GLENN SCHLACTUS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACK HOLTZMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURA J. GAZTAMBIDE−ARANDES (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/09/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
REED N COLFAX (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SASHA M. SAMBERG−CHAMPION (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
BRENDA L. SHUM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/09/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EMILY P. TURNER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GENEVIEVE B. TORRES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JAMIE L. CROOK (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JON M. GREENBAUM

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 42 of 97

Intervenor Defendant TAMIKA WILLIAMS on behalf of A.J.
Intervenor Defendant RAMONIA JONES

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by CHRISTINE C. BISCHOFF (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/21/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GLENN SCHLACTUS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACK HOLTZMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURA J. GAZTAMBIDE−ARANDES (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/09/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
REED N COLFAX (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SASHA M. SAMBERG−CHAMPION (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
BRENDA L. SHUM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/09/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EMILY P. TURNER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GENEVIEVE B. TORRES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JAMIE L. CROOK (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JON M. GREENBAUM (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by CHRISTINE C. BISCHOFF (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/21/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 43 of 97

Intervenor Defendant ANDREW BRENNAN

GLENN SCHLACTUS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JACK HOLTZMAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURA J. GAZTAMBIDE−ARANDES (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/09/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
REED N COLFAX (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
SASHA M. SAMBERG−CHAMPION (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
BRENDA L. SHUM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/09/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EMILY P. TURNER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GENEVIEVE B. TORRES (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JAMIE L. CROOK (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JON M. GREENBAUM (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by BRENDA L. SHUM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/09/2019 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DAVID G. HINOJOSA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
EMILY P. TURNER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GENEVIEVE B. TORRES

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 44 of 97

Movant CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE c/o Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law One University Drive Orange, CA 92866 (877) 855−3330 V. Amicus ARCELORMITTAL USA LLC
Amicus ARIEL INVESTMENTS LLC

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JAMIE L. CROOK (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/23/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JON M. GREENBAUM (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAURA J. GAZTAMBIDE−ARANDES (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/09/2019
represented by NATALIO D. BUDASOFF 110 West Third Street #1110A New York, NY 10012 336−447−8015 Email: ndb327@nyu.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JAMES M. WEISS ELLIS & WINTERS, LLP 4131 PARKLAKE AVENUE, STE. 400 RALEIGH, NC 27612 919−865−7000 Fax: 919−865−7010 Email: james.weiss@elliswinters.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A. 1450 RALEIGH ROAD SUITE 100 CHAPEL HILL, NC 27517 919−328−8816 Fax: 919−328−8790 Email: sfeldman@robinsonbradshaw.com TERMINATED: 02/28/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JAMES M. WEISS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 45 of 97

Amicus CAPITOL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC.
Amicus CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.
Amicus CUMMINS INC.
Amicus DUKE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.
Amicus EBAY INC.
Amicus

represented by JAMES M. WEISS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JAMES M. WEISS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JAMES M. WEISS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JAMES M. WEISS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JAMES M. WEISS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 46 of 97

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
Amicus ENTERGY CORPORATION
Amicus ERNST & YOUNG
Amicus GENERAL MOTORS LLC
Amicus GLAXOSMITHKLINE, LLC
Amicus THE HERSHEY COMPANY

represented by JAMES M. WEISS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JAMES M. WEISS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JAMES M. WEISS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JAMES M. WEISS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JAMES M. WEISS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JAMES M. WEISS (See above for address)

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 47 of 97

Amicus HP INC.
Amicus IBM CORPORATION
Amicus IKEA RETAIL US LLC
Amicus KPMG LLP
Amicus MICROSOFT CORPORATION

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JAMES M. WEISS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JAMES M. WEISS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JAMES M. WEISS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JAMES M. WEISS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JAMES M. WEISS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 48 of 97

Amicus NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR STOCK CAR AUTO RACING, INC.
Amicus PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC.
Amicus PEPSICO, INC.
Amicus RED HAT, INC.
Amicus THE REDWOODS GROUP, INC.

STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JAMES M. WEISS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JAMES M. WEISS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JAMES M. WEISS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JAMES M. WEISS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JAMES M. WEISS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 49 of 97

Amicus REPLACEMENTS, LTD. TONYA CALHOUN HUMAN RESOURCES POB 26029 GREENSBORO, NC 27420
Amicus RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE
Amicus TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC.
Amicus UNITED AIRLINES, INC.
Amicus YUM! BRANDS, INC.

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JAMES M. WEISS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JAMES M. WEISS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JAMES M. WEISS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JAMES M. WEISS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JAMES M. WEISS (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2020

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 50 of 97

Amicus 18MillionRising.org
Amicus AAPIs for Civic Empowerment Education Fund
Amicus AFTER BRUCE
Amicus AMERICAN CITIZENS FOR JUSTICE
Amicus AMERICAN MUSLIM VOICE FOUNDATION
Amicus ASIAN PACIFIC ISLANDER AMERICANS FOR CIVIC EMPOWERMENT (APACE) Amicus API Equality − Northern California
Amicus ARAB AMERICAN ACTION NETWORK
Amicus ARIZONA ASIAN & PACIFIC ISLANDER AMERICAN VOTE TABLE Amicus ASIAN & LATINO SOLIDARITY ALLIANCE OF CENTRAL VIRGINIA Amicus

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP POB 27525 RALEIGH, NC 27611 919−755−8759 Fax: 919−755−8700 Email: mleerberg@foxrothschild.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 51 of 97

ASIAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND
Amicus ASIAN AMERICAN POLITICAL ALLIANCE (AAPA), UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
Amicus ASIAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (ACDC)
Amicus ASIAN COUNSELING AND REFERRAL SERVICE
Amicus ASIAN LAW ALLIANCE
Amicus ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Amicus ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LABOR ALLIANCE (APALA), AFL−CIO
Amicus ASIAN PACIFIC POLICY AND PLANNING COUNCIL
Amicus ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER LAW STUDENTS ASSOCIATION AT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES SCHOOL OF LAW
Amicus ASSOCIATION FOR ASIAN AMERICAN YALE ALUMNI (AAAYA)
Amicus BALTIMORE ASIAN RESISTANCE IN SOLIDARITY
Amicus BERKLEY LAW ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LAW STUDENTS

represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address)

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 52 of 97

ASSOCIATION (APALSA)
Amicus CHINESE AMERICAN CITIZENS ALLIANCE (C.A.C.A.), LOS ANGELES CHAPTER
Amicus CHINESE AMERICAN PROGRESSIVE ACTION
Amicus CHINESE FOR AFFIRMITIVE ACTION (CAA)
Amicus CHINESE PROGRESSIVE ASSOCIATION
Amicus CLAREMONT SOUTH ASAIN STUDENT ASSOCIATION
Amicus COALITION FOR A DIVERSE HARVARD
Amicus COALITION FOR ASIAN AMERICAN CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (CACF)
Amicus COUNCIL ON AMERICAN−ISLAMIC RELATIONS, CALIFORNIA
Amicus DUKE ASIAN AMERICAN STUDIES PROGRAM
Amicus DUKE ASIAN STUDENTS ASSOCIATION
Amicus EAST COAST ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT UNION
Amicus

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 53 of 97

EMPOWERING PACIFIC ISLANDER COMMUNITIES
Amicus GAPIMNY − Empowering Queer & Trans Asian Pacific Islanders
Amicus HARVARD ASIAN AMERICAN WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION
Amicus HARVARD VIETNAMESE ASSOCIATION
Amicus JAKARA MOVEMENT
Amicus JAPANESE AMERICANS CITIZENS LEAGUE
Amicus LAMBDA PHI EPSILON AT NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
Amicus MINKWON CENTER FOR COMMUNITY ACTION
Amicus MUSLIM STUDENT ASSOCIATION WEST (MSA West)
Amicus NATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN FAMILIES AGAINST SUBSTANCE ABUSE (NAPAFASA) Amicus NATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN WOMEN'S FORUM
Amicus NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICANS (NCAPA)

represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 54 of 97

Amicus NATIONAL QUEER ASIAN PACIFIC ISLANDER ALLIANCE (NQAPIA)
Amicus NATIONAL TONGAN AMERICAN SOCIETY (NTAS)
Amicus NEW MEXICO ASIAN FAMILY CENTER
Amicus NORTH CAROLINA ASIAN AMERICANS TOGETHER
Amicus NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY ASIAN STUDENTS IN ALLIANCE Amicus OCA − Asian Pacific American Advocates
Amicus OCA Greater Phoenix
Amicus PACIFIC ISLANDER HEALTH PARTNERSHIP
Amicus PILIPINO AMERICAN LAW SOCIETY AT BERKELEY LAW
Amicus PILIPINO WORKERS CENTER OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Amicus REAPPROPRIATE
Amicus

represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 55 of 97

SOUTH ASAIN AMERICANS LEADING TOGETHER (SAALT)
Amicus SOUTH ASIAN LAW STUDENTS ASSOCIATION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL
Amicus SOUTHEAST ASIA RESOURCE ACTION CENTER (SEARAC)
Amicus TASK FORCE ON ASIAN AND PACIFIC AMERICAN STUDIES AT HARVARD COLLEGE (TAPAS)
Amicus THIRD WORLD LIBERATION FRONT (TWLF), UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
Amicus THIRD WORLD LIVERATION FRONT '69 AD HOC COMMITTEE
Amicus U.S. Palestinian Community Network (USPCN)
Amicus UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES SOUTH ASIAN LAW STUDENTS ASSOCIATION
Amicus UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA ALPHA KAPPA DELTA PHI
Amicus UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA ASIAN AMERICAN LAW STUDENTS ASSOCIATION
Amicus UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA − CHAPEL HILL ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENTS ASSOCIATION
Amicus

MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 56 of 97

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA − CHAPEL HILL CAMPUS Y EXECUTIVE BOARD Amicus UNION OF NORTH AMERICAN VIETNAMESE STUDENT ASSOCIATIONS Amicus UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LAW STUDENTS ASSOCIATION Amicus UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA ASIAN PACIFIC STUDENT COALITION Amicus VIETNAMESE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Amicus C. CASEY OZAKI
Amicus C. N. LE
Amicus CHERYL D. CHING
Amicus CORINNE KODAMA
Amicus DAVID HOA KHOA NGUYEN
Amicus DIAN SQUIRE
Amicus CHRISTIN DEPOUW

MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 57 of 97

Amicus JENNIFER HO
Amicus STEPHANIE KIM
Amicus JANELLE WONG
Amicus JULIE J. PARK
Amicus KEVIN KUMASHIRO
Amicus LILIANA M. GARCES
Amicus LIZA A. TALUSAN
Amicus MARC JOHNSTON−GUERRERO
Amicus MIN ZHOU
Amicus NANCY LEONG
Amicus OIYAN POON
Amicus SUNAINA MAIRA

represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 58 of 97

Amicus MATTHEW WITENSTEIN
Amicus VARAXY YI BORROMEO
Amicus ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE
Amicus ADVANCINT JUSTICE − LOS ANGELES
Amicus ADVANCING JUSTICE − ASIAN LAW CAUCUS
Amicus ADVANCING JUSTICE − AAJC
Amicus ADVANCING JUSTICE − ATLANTA
Amicus ADVANCING JUSTICE − CHICAGO

MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by MATTHEW NIS LEERBERG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/17/2014 11/17/2014 11/18/2014 11/18/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0418−1607504.), filed by Students For Fair Admissions. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Edward Blum)(BOYLE, WILLIAM) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
2 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed pursuant to FRCP 7.1(a) by Plaintiff STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. (BOYLE, WILLIAM) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
3 Summons Issued as to All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Summons Caudill, # 2 Summons Bissette, # 3 Summons Mitchell, # 4 Summons MacMahan)(Coyne, Michelle) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
4 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 3 Summons Issued. (Attachments: # 1 UNCCH, # 2 UNCBOG, # 3 UNC, # 4 Ross)(Coyne, Michelle) (Entered: 11/18/2014)

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 59 of 97

11/18/2014 11/18/2014 11/18/2014 11/18/2014 11/18/2014 11/18/2014 11/18/2014 11/18/2014 12/11/2014
12/11/2014

5 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 3 Summons Issued. (Attachments: # 1 Pickett, # 2 Lerner, # 3 Long, # 4 Farmer, # 5 Lampe, # 6 Shuping Russell)(Coyne, Michelle) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
6 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 3 Summons Issued. (Attachments: # 1 Hood, # 2 Rippy, # 3 Taylor, # 4 Trask, # 5 Parrish)(Coyne, Michelle) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
7 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 3 Summons Issued. (Attachments: # 1 Walker, # 2 Grauer, # 3 Hans, # 4 Maxwell, # 5 Wiley, # 6 Hopkins)(Coyne, Michelle) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
8 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 3 Summons Issued. (Attachments: # 1 Perry, # 2 MacNeill, # 3 Brown, # 4 Dean, # 5 Holmes, # 6 Souza, # 7 Hinton)(Coyne, Michelle) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
9 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 3 Summons Issued. (Attachments: # 1 Smith, # 2 Math, # 3 Gage, # 4 Frainger, # 5 Sywassink, # 6 Lail, # 7 Stone)(Coyne, Michelle) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
10 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 3 Summons Issued. (Attachments: # 1 Powers, # 2 Duckett, # 3 Whaley, # 4 Folt, # 5 Spangler, # 6 Goodnight, # 7 Powell)(Coyne, Michelle) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
11 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 3 Summons Issued. (Attachments: # 1 Parker)(Coyne, Michelle) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
12 Notice of Right to Consent. Counsel shall serve the attached form on all parties. (Coyne, Michelle) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
13 WAIVER OF SERVICE of SUMMONS by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. JEFFERSON W. BROWN waiver sent on 12/1/2014, answer due 1/30/2015; W. LOWRY CAUDILL waiver sent on 12/1/2014, answer due 1/30/2015; PHILLIP L. CLAY waiver sent on 12/1/2014, answer due 1/30/2015; HAYWOOD D. COCHRANE waiver sent on 12/1/2014, answer due 1/30/2015; DONALD WILLIAMS CURTIS waiver sent on 12/1/2014, answer due 1/30/2015; JAMES W. DEAN, JR waiver sent on 12/1/2014, answer due 1/30/2015; CHARELS G. DUCKETT waiver sent on 12/1/2014, answer due 1/30/2015; STEPHEN M. FARMER waiver sent on 12/1/2014, answer due 1/30/2015; CAROL L. FOLT waiver sent on 12/1/2014, answer due 1/30/2015; ALSTON GARDNER waiver sent on 12/1/2014, answer due 1/30/2015; PETER T. GRAUER waiver sent on 12/1/2014, answer due 1/30/2015; KELLY MATTHEWS HOPKINS waiver sent on 12/1/2014, answer due 1/30/2015; STEVEN LERNER waiver sent on 12/1/2014, answer due 1/30/2015; ANDREW HENRY POWELL waiver sent on 12/1/2014, answer due 1/30/2015; SALLIE SHUPING−RUSSELL waiver sent on 12/1/2014, answer due 1/30/2015; DWIGHT D. STONE waiver sent on 12/1/2014, answer due 1/30/2015; UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL waiver sent on 12/1/2014, answer due 1/30/2015; UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF TRUSTEES waiver sent on 12/1/2014, answer due 1/30/2015. (BOYLE, WILLIAM) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
14 WAIVER OF SERVICE of SUMMONS by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. ROGER AIKEN waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; H. FRANK FRAINGER waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; HANNAH D. GAGE waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; ANN B. GOODNIGHT waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; PETER D. HANS waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; THOMAS J. HARRELSON waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; HENRY W. HINTON waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; JAMES L. HOLMES, JR waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; RODNEY E. HOOD waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; W. MARTY KOTIS, III waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; G. LEROY LAIL waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; SCOTT LAMPE waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; STEVEN B. LONG waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; JOAN G. MACNEILL waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; HARI H. MATH waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 60 of 97

01/12/2015 01/12/2015

1/20/2015; MARY ANN MAXWELL waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; W. EDWIN MCMAHAN waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; ANNA SPANGLER NELSON waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; ALEX PARKER waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; R. DOYLE PARRISH waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; THERENCE O. PICKETT waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; DAVID M. POWERS waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; ROBERT S. RIPPY waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; THOMAS W. ROSS waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; HARRY LEO SMITH, JR waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; J. CRAIG SOUZA waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; GEORGE A. SYWASSINK waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; RICHARD F. TAYLOR waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; RAIFORD TRASK, III waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; PHILLIP D. WALKER waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015; LAURA I. WILEY waiver sent on 11/21/2014, answer due 1/20/2015. (BOYLE, WILLIAM) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
15 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney MATTHEW T. TULCHIN on behalf of Defendants ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JEFFERSON W. BROWN, W. LOWRY CAUDILL, PHILLIP L. CLAY, HAYWOOD D. COCHRANE, DONALD WILLIAMS CURTIS, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, CHARELS G. DUCKETT, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ALSTON GARDNER, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER T. GRAUER, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, KELLY MATTHEWS HOPKINS, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN LERNER, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, ANDREW HENRY POWELL, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, SALLIE SHUPING−RUSSELL, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, DWIGHT D. STONE, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY (TULCHIN, MATTHEW) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney STEPHANIE A. BRENNAN on behalf of Defendants ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JEFFERSON W. BROWN, W. LOWRY CAUDILL, PHILLIP L. CLAY, HAYWOOD D. COCHRANE, DONALD WILLIAMS CURTIS, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, CHARELS G. DUCKETT, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ALSTON GARDNER, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER T. GRAUER, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, KELLY MATTHEWS HOPKINS, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN LERNER, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, ANDREW HENRY POWELL, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, SALLIE SHUPING−RUSSELL, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, DWIGHT D. STONE, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY (BRENNAN, STEPHANIE) (Entered: 01/12/2015)

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 61 of 97

01/12/2015
01/12/2015 01/13/2015 01/15/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 01/23/2015 03/04/2015

17 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Other Response by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JEFFERSON W. BROWN, W. LOWRY CAUDILL, PHILLIP L. CLAY, HAYWOOD D. COCHRANE, DONALD WILLIAMS CURTIS, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, CHARELS G. DUCKETT, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ALSTON GARDNER, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER T. GRAUER, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, KELLY MATTHEWS HOPKINS, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN LERNER, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, ANDREW HENRY POWELL, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, SALLIE SHUPING−RUSSELL, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, DWIGHT D. STONE, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (BRENNAN, STEPHANIE) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
Case Reassigned to JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS. JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER no longer assigned to the case. (Garrett, Kim) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
Motions Referred: RE: 17 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Other Response, to MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER (Williamson, Wanda) (Entered: 01/13/2015)
18 ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 1/15/2015, that Defendants' Motion (Docket Entry 17 ) is GRANTED, and Defendants are allowed up to and including March 6, 2015, within which to serve an answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's complaint. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
19 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney JOHN MICHAEL CONNOLLY on behalf of Plaintiff STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. (CONNOLLY, JOHN) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
20 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney THOMAS R. MCCARTHY on behalf of Plaintiff STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. (MCCARTHY, THOMAS) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
21 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney WILLIAM S. CONSOVOY on behalf of Plaintiff STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. (CONSOVOY, WILLIAM) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
23 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JEFFERSON W. BROWN, W. LOWRY CAUDILL, PHILLIP L. CLAY, HAYWOOD D. COCHRANE, DONALD WILLIAMS CURTIS, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, CHARELS G. DUCKETT, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ALSTON GARDNER, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER T. GRAUER, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, KELLY MATTHEWS HOPKINS, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN LERNER, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, ANDREW HENRY POWELL, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, SALLIE SHUPING−RUSSELL, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, DWIGHT D. STONE, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(BRENNAN, STEPHANIE) (Entered: 03/04/2015)

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 62 of 97

03/06/2015 03/06/2015
03/06/2015
03/09/2015 03/16/2015

Motions Referred: RE: 23 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint to MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER. (Kemp, Donita) (Entered: 03/06/2015)
24 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER on behalf of Defendants ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JEFFERSON W. BROWN, W. LOWRY CAUDILL, PHILLIP L. CLAY, HAYWOOD D. COCHRANE, DONALD WILLIAMS CURTIS, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, CHARELS G. DUCKETT, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ALSTON GARDNER, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER T. GRAUER, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, KELLY MATTHEWS HOPKINS, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN LERNER, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, ANDREW HENRY POWELL, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, SALLIE SHUPING−RUSSELL, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, DWIGHT D. STONE, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY (SCUDDER, MICHAEL) (Entered: 03/06/2015)
25 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney MARIANNE H. COMBS on behalf of Defendants ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JEFFERSON W. BROWN, W. LOWRY CAUDILL, PHILLIP L. CLAY, HAYWOOD D. COCHRANE, DONALD WILLIAMS CURTIS, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, CHARELS G. DUCKETT, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ALSTON GARDNER, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER T. GRAUER, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, KELLY MATTHEWS HOPKINS, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN LERNER, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, ANDREW HENRY POWELL, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, SALLIE SHUPING−RUSSELL, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, DWIGHT D. STONE, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY (COMBS, MARIANNE) (Entered: 03/06/2015)
26 ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 03/09/2015, that Defendants' Motion (Docket Entry 23 ) is GRANTED, and Defendants shall have up to and including March 16, 2015 to file an answer or other response to Plaintiff's complaint. (Taylor, Abby) Modified on 3/10/2015 to correct docket text (Taylor, Abby). (Entered: 03/09/2015)
27 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint or Otherwise Respond by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JEFFERSON W. BROWN, W. LOWRY CAUDILL, PHILLIP L. CLAY, HAYWOOD D. COCHRANE, DONALD WILLIAMS CURTIS, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, CHARELS G. DUCKETT, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ALSTON GARDNER, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER T. GRAUER, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, KELLY MATTHEWS HOPKINS, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN LERNER, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 63 of 97

03/19/2015 03/20/2015 03/20/2015 03/24/2015
03/25/2015 05/04/2015 05/04/2015
05/12/2015

PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, ANDREW HENRY POWELL, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, SALLIE SHUPING−RUSSELL, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, DWIGHT D. STONE, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(SCUDDER, MICHAEL) (Entered: 03/16/2015)
Motions Referred: RE: 27 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint or Otherwise Respond, to MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER (Williamson, Wanda) (Entered: 03/19/2015)
28 ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 3/20/2015, that the motion (Docket Entry 27 ) is GRANTED, and Defendants shall have up to and including 3/20/2015 to file an answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's complaint. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 03/20/2015)
29 STIPULATION of Dismissal of party JOINT STIPULATION BY ALL PARTIES TO DISMISS VARIOUS PATIES AND CLAIMS by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. (BOYLE, WILLIAM) Modified on 3/23/2015 per the request of filer.(Coyne, Michelle). (Entered: 03/20/2015)
30 ANSWER to 1 Complaint and Affirmative Defenses by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (SCUDDER, MICHAEL) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
31 NOTICE of Initial Pretrial Conference Hearing: Initial Pretrial Conference Hearing set for 5/13/2015 09:30 AM in Durham Courtroom #1 before MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER. (Garrett, Kim) (Entered: 03/25/2015)
32 Rule 26(f) Report (Individual). by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC..(BOYLE, WILLIAM) (Entered: 05/04/2015)
33 Rule 26(f) Report (Individual). by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY.(SCUDDER, MICHAEL) (Entered: 05/04/2015)
Motions Referred: RE: 33 Rule 26(f) Report (Individual), 32 Rule 26(f) Report (Individual), to MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER (Garrett, Kim) (Entered: 05/12/2015)

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 64 of 97

05/13/2015 05/14/2015 05/14/2015
06/29/2015 06/30/2015 06/30/2015 06/30/2015 06/30/2015 06/30/2015 06/30/2015 07/02/2015 07/02/2015

Minute Entry for proceedings held before MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER: Attorneys Thomas McCarthy and William Boyle appeared as counsel for plaintiff. Attorneys Stephanie Brennan and Michael Scudder appeared as counsel for the defendants.Initial Pretrial Conference held on 5/13/2015. The Court adopts defendants Rule 26(f) Report. Written order forthcoming. (Proceedings Recorded) (Winchester, Robin) (Entered: 05/13/2015)
34 ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 5/13/2015, that Plaintiff's Individual Rule 26(f) Report (Docket Entry 32 ) is DENIED. Defendants' Individual Rule 26(f) Report (Docket Entry 33 ) is ADOPTED with the following modifications: Initial pretrial disclosures shall be due no later than 5/20/2015. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 05/14/2015)
Set Scheduling Order Deadlines. Case−Management Track: Exceptional. Discovery due by 2/15/2016. The parties agree this case is unlikely to be resolved in mediation. Plaintiffs Amended Pleadings and Joinder of Parties due by 6/29/2015. Defendants Amended Pleadings and Joinder of Parties due by 8/11/2015. Dispositive Motions due within 45 days of the close of discovery. The parties do no consent to the reference this case to a Magistrate Judge. ETT: 10−15 days. A jury trial has been demanded. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 05/14/2015)
35 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney REED N COLFAX on behalf of Intervenor Defendants Cecilia Polanco, Luis Acosta, Star Wingate−Bey, Laura Ornelas, Kevin Mills, Angie Mills, Julia Nieves, Tamika Williams, Ramonia Jones, Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Jackson (COLFAX, REED) (Entered: 06/30/2015)
36 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney GLENN SCHLACTUS on behalf of Intervenor Defendants Luis Acosta, Ramonia Jones, Angie Mills, Kevin Mills, Julia Nieves, Laura Ornelas, Cecilia Polanco, Tamika Williams, Star Wingate−Bey, Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Jackson (SCHLACTUS, GLENN) (Entered: 06/30/2015)
37 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney SASHA M. SAMBERG−CHAMPION on behalf of Intervenor Defendants Luis Acosta, Ramonia Jones, Angie Mills, Kevin Mills, Julia Nieves, Laura Ornelas, Cecilia Polanco, Tamika Williams, Star Wingate−Bey, Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Jackson (SAMBERG−CHAMPION, SASHA) (Entered: 06/30/2015)
38 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney LAURA J. GAZTAMBIDE−ARANDES on behalf of Intervenor Defendants Luis Acosta, Ramonia Jones, Angie Mills, Kevin Mills, Julia Nieves, Laura Ornelas, Cecilia Polanco, Tamika Williams, Star Wingate−Bey, Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Jackson (GAZTAMBIDE−ARANDES, LAURA) (Entered: 06/30/2015)
39 MOTION to Intervene by Luis Acosta, Christopher Jackson, Ramonia Jones, Angie Mills, Kevin Mills, Julia Nieves, Laura Ornelas, Cecilia Polanco, Tamika Williams, Star Wingate−Bey. Responses due by 7/23/2015 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Declarations, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Proposed Answer)(COLFAX, REED) (Entered: 06/30/2015)
40 MEMORANDUM filed by Intervenor Defendants Luis Acosta, Ramonia Jones, Angie Mills, Kevin Mills, Julia Nieves, Laura Ornelas, Cecilia Polanco, Tamika Williams, Star Wingate−Bey, Intervenor Plaintiff Christopher Jackson re 39 MOTION to Intervene filed by Luis Acosta, Christopher Jackson, Ramonia Jones, Angie Mills, Kevin Mills, Julia Nieves, Laura Ornelas, Cecilia Polanco, Tamika Williams, Star Wingate−Bey. (COLFAX, REED) (Entered: 06/30/2015)
41 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney JACK HOLTZMAN on behalf of Intervenor Defendants LUIS ACOSTA, CHRISTOPHER JACKSON, RAMONIA JONES, Angie Mills, Kevin Mills, Julia Nieves, Laura Ornelas, Cecilia Polanco, Tamika Williams, Star Wingate−Bey (HOLTZMAN, JACK) (Entered: 06/30/2015)
42 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney DANIEL ALAN M. RULEY on behalf of Plaintiff STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. (RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 07/02/2015)
43 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney ANDREW ALLEN FREEMAN on behalf of Plaintiff STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. (FREEMAN, ANDREW) (Entered: 07/02/2015)

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 65 of 97

07/06/2015 07/06/2015 07/06/2015
07/06/2015
07/06/2015

44 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney WILLIAM ELLIS BOYLE by on behalf of STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(BOYLE, WILLIAM) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
Motion Referred: RE: 44 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney − WILLIAM ELLIS BOYLE, to MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER. (Samuel−Priestley, Tina) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
45 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(SCUDDER, MICHAEL) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
46 MOTION to Stay Proceedings by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(SCUDDER, MICHAEL) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
47 MEMORANDUM filed by Defendants ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY re 46 MOTION to Stay Proceedings In Support filed by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 66 of 97

07/07/2015 07/09/2015 07/09/2015 07/21/2015 07/22/2015
07/27/2015 07/27/2015 07/28/2015 08/03/2015 08/07/2015

SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(SCUDDER, MICHAEL) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
Motion Referred: RE: 45 Joint MOTION for Protective Order, to MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER. (Samuel−Priestley, Tina) (Entered: 07/07/2015)
48 ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 7/9/2015, that the motion (Docket Entry 44 ) is GRANTED. W. Ellis Boyle and Ellis Boyle Law, PLLC firm are withdrawn as counsel for Plaintiffs and are discharged from any further duties or responsibilities. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 07/09/2015)
49 AGREED CONFIDENTIALITY AND PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 7/9/2015. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 07/09/2015)
50 RESPONSE in Opposition re 39 MOTION to Intervene filed by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. Replies due by 8/7/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Students v Harvard Order, # 2 Exhibit B − Fisher v. Texas Order)(RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 07/21/2015)
51 RESPONSE in Opposition re 39 MOTION to Intervene filed by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JEFFERSON W. BROWN, W. LOWRY CAUDILL, PHILLIP L. CLAY, HAYWOOD D. COCHRANE, DONALD WILLIAMS CURTIS, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, CHARELS G. DUCKETT, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ALSTON GARDNER, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER T. GRAUER, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, KELLY MATTHEWS HOPKINS, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN LERNER, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, ANDREW HENRY POWELL, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, SALLIE SHUPING−RUSSELL, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, DWIGHT D. STONE, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. Replies due by 8/10/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4)(BRENNAN, STEPHANIE) (Entered: 07/22/2015)
52 RESPONSE in Opposition re 46 MOTION to Stay Proceedings filed by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. Replies due by 8/13/2015. (RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 07/27/2015)
53 MOTION to Consolidate Briefing by LUIS ACOSTA, CHRISTOPHER JACKSON, RAMONIA JONES, Angie Mills, Kevin Mills, Julia Nieves, Laura Ornelas, Cecilia Polanco, Tamika Williams, Star Wingate−Bey. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(COLFAX, REED) (Entered: 07/27/2015)
Motions Submitted: 53 MOTION to Consolidate Briefing to JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS− (Williamson, Wanda) (Entered: 07/28/2015)
54 ORDER signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 8/3/2015, granting (ECF No. 53 ) Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Briefing, and Proposed Intervenors are permitted to file a consolidated reply brief no more than fifteen pages in support of their Motion to Intervene. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 08/03/2015)
55 REPLY, filed by Defendants ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL,

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 67 of 97

08/07/2015 08/12/2015 08/13/2015 08/14/2015
08/28/2015

SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY, to Response to 46 MOTION to Stay Proceedings (Oral Argument Requested) filed by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (SCUDDER, MICHAEL) (Entered: 08/07/2015)
56 REPLY, filed by Intervenor Defendants LUIS ACOSTA, CHRISTOPHER JACKSON, RAMONIA JONES, ANGIE MILLS, KEVIN MILLS, JULIA NIEVES, LAURA ORNELAS, CECILIA POLANCE, TAMIKA WILLIAMS, STAR WINGATE−BEY, to Response to 39 MOTION to Intervene filed by LUIS ACOSTA, CHRISTOPHER JACKSON, RAMONIA JONES, ANGIE MILLS, KEVIN MILLS, JULIA NIEVES, LAURA ORNELAS, CECILIA POLANCE, TAMIKA WILLIAMS, STAR WINGATE−BEY. (COLFAX, REED) (Entered: 08/07/2015)
57 NOTICE of Hearing: Master Trial Calendar: OCTOBER: Jury Trial set for 10/3/2016 at 09:30 AM in Unassigned Courtroom before UNASSIGNED Judge. Trial briefs and proposed instructions on the issues due 9/12/2016. (Samuel−Priestley, Tina) (Entered: 08/12/2015)
Motions Submitted: 39 MOTION to Intervene, and 46 MOTION to Stay Proceedings, to JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS. (Samuel−Priestley, Tina) (Entered: 08/13/2015)
58 STIPULATION of Electronically Stored Information Discovery Protocol by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (SCUDDER, MICHAEL) (Entered: 08/14/2015)
59 Joint MOTION for Protective Order (Amended) by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT,

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 68 of 97

08/31/2015 09/01/2015 09/01/2015 09/08/2015 09/17/2015
09/17/2015 09/30/2015

DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(SCUDDER, MICHAEL) (Entered: 08/28/2015)
Motion Referred: RE: 59 Joint MOTION for Protective Order (Amended), to MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER. (Samuel−Priestley, Tina) (Entered: 08/31/2015)
60 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney CHRISTINE C. BISCHOFF on behalf of Intervenor Defendants LUIS ACOSTA, CHRISTOPHER JACKSON, RAMONIA JONES, ANGIE MILLS, KEVIN MILLS, JULIA NIEVES, LAURA ORNELAS, CECILIA POLANCE, TAMIKA WILLIAMS, STAR WINGATE−BEY (BISCHOFF, CHRISTINE) (Main Document 60 replaced on 9/2/2015) (Sheets, Jamie). (Entered: 09/01/2015)
61 AMENDED CONFIDENTIALITY AND PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 9/1/2015 as set out herein. (Sheets, Jamie) (Entered: 09/01/2015)
62 ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 9/8/2015, that the terms of the Stipulation of the Parties is hereby entered as an Order of this Court. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 09/08/2015)
63 Joint MOTION for to Discuss Case Management, Scheduling, and Related Considerations in Light of Defendants' Motion to Stay all Proceedings Status Conference by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (SCUDDER, MICHAEL) (Entered: 09/17/2015)
Motion Submitted: 63 Joint MOTION for Status Conference to Discuss Case Management, Scheduling, and Related Considerations in Light of Defendants' Motion to Stay all Proceedings, to JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS. (Samuel−Priestley, Tina) (Entered: 09/17/2015)
64 Joint MOTION to Stay Proceedings by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(SCUDDER, MICHAEL) (Entered: 09/30/2015)

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 69 of 97

09/30/2015 10/01/2015
12/29/2015 03/15/2016 03/15/2016 03/21/2016 07/07/2016
07/15/2016 07/20/2016

Motion Submitted: 64 Joint MOTION to Stay Proceedings, to JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS. (Samuel−Priestley, Tina) (Entered: 09/30/2015)
65 ORDER signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 10/1/2015, that (i) the Joint Motion for Partial Stay of Proceedings (ECF No. 64 ) is GRANTED, that (ii) Defendants shall produce to plaintiff by December 31, 2015 the materials in the Stipulation entered as an Order of the Court on September 8, 2015 (ECF No. 62 ) and certain other agreed upon documents relating to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's admission policies from the 2013−2014 and 2014−2015 admissions cycles that are partially responsive to Plaintiff's discovery requests; (iii) all other proceedings in this case be stayed pending the Supreme Court's decision in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, No. 14−981, with the exception that upon motion by either party the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case may take any action deemed necessary and appropriate to enforce the parties' agreed−upon discovery; and (iv) the parties be directed to meet and confer and notify the Court in writing of their respective positions on the course of continued proceedings within 14 days following issuance of a decision by the Supreme Court in Fisher II. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 10/01/2015)
66 Suggestion of Subsequently Decided Authority re 56 Reply to Response to Motion, 50 Response in Opposition to Motion, 39 MOTION to Intervene , 40 Memorandum, by Plaintiff STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Opinion)(RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 12/29/2015)
67 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney CHRISTINE C. BISCHOFF by on behalf of LUIS ACOSTA, CHRISTOPHER JACKSON, RAMONIA JONES, ANGIE MILLS, KEVIN MILLS, JULIA NIEVES, LAURA ORNELAS, CECILIA POLANCE, TAMIKA WILLIAMS, STAR WINGATE−BEY. Responses due by 4/8/2016 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(BISCHOFF, CHRISTINE) (Entered: 03/15/2016)
Motion Referred: RE: 67 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney CHRISTINE C. BISCHOFF, to MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER. (Samuel−Priestley, Tina) (Entered: 03/15/2016)
68 ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 3/21/2016, that the motion (Docket Entry 67 ) is GRANTED. Christine Bischoff is withdrawn as counsel for Proposed Defendant−Intervenors and is discharged from any further duties or responsibilities. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
69 JOINT MOTION for the Proposal on the Course of Continued Proceedings by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (SCUDDER, MICHAEL) (Entered: 07/07/2016)
70 NOTICE by LUIS ACOSTA, CHRISTOPHER JACKSON, RAMONIA JONES, ANGIE MILLS, KEVIN MILLS, JULIA NIEVES, LAURA ORNELAS, CECILIA POLANCE, TAMIKA WILLIAMS, STAR WINGATE−BEY of Pending Motion (COLFAX, REED) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
71 Suggestion of Subsequently Decided Authority re 70 Notice (Other) by Defendants ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JEFFERSON W. BROWN, W. LOWRY CAUDILL, PHILLIP L. CLAY, HAYWOOD D. COCHRANE, DONALD WILLIAMS CURTIS, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, CHARELS G. DUCKETT, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ALSTON GARDNER, ANN B. GOODNIGHT,

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 70 of 97

07/28/2016 08/01/2016
08/11/2016 08/16/2016 09/09/2016 09/16/2016 10/07/2016 10/07/2016 01/13/2017
02/02/2017

PETER T. GRAUER, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, KELLY MATTHEWS HOPKINS, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN LERNER, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, ANDREW HENRY POWELL, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, SALLIE SHUPING−RUSSELL, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, DWIGHT D. STONE, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A− SFFA v. President & Fellows of Harvard College)(BRENNAN, STEPHANIE) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
Motions Referred: RE: 69 JOINT MOTION for the Proposal on the Course of Continued Proceedings, to MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER (Williamson, Wanda) (Entered: 07/28/2016)
72 ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 8/1/2016, adopting the proposed discovery plan set forth in the parties' Joint Proposal on the Course of Continued Proceedings (Docket Entry 69 ). All discovery shall be completed by 12/1/2017. Any summary judgment motions shall be filed within 60 days from the close of discovery. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 08/01/2016)
73 NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF JURY TRIAL previously set for the October 2016 Master Calendar Term. (Samuel−Priestley, Tina) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
74 ( Docketed in Error) NOTICE of Trial Calendar Jury Trial set for 10/3/2016 09:30 AM in Winston−Salem Courtroom #1 before JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS. (Winchester, Robin) Modified on 8/16/2016 (Winchester, Robin). (Entered: 08/16/2016)
75 NOTICE of Hearing: Master Trial Calendar: OCTOBER: Jury Trial set for 10/2/2017 at 9:30 AM in Unassigned Courtroom before UNASSIGNED JUDGE. Trial briefs and proposed instructions on the issues due 9/11/2017. (Samuel−Priestley, Tina) (Entered: 09/09/2016)
76 NOTICE OF RESCHEDULING: Master Trial Calendar: OCTOBER: Jury Trial set for 10/1/2018 at 9:30 AM in Unassigned Courtroom before UNASSIGNED JUDGE. Trial briefs and proposed instructions on the issues due 9/10/2018.(Samuel−Priestley, Tina) (Entered: 09/16/2016)
77 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney MICHAEL H. PARK on behalf of Plaintiff STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. (PARK, MICHAEL) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
78 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney PATRICK STRAWBRIDGE on behalf of Plaintiff STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. (STRAWBRIDGE, PATRICK) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
79 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 1/13/2017, that Proposed Intervenors' Motion to Intervene in Defense of UNC−Chapel Hill's Admissions Policy (ECF No. 39 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Proposed Intervenors' motion to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a) is DENIED. However, their motion for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) is GRANTED. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 01/13/2017)
80 Defendant−Intervenors' ANSWER to 1 Complaint by LUIS ACOSTA, CHRISTOPHER JACKSON, RAMONIA JONES, ANGIE MILLS, KEVIN MILLS, JULIA NIEVES, LAURA ORNELAS, CECILIA POLANCE, TAMIKA WILLIAMS, STAR WINGATE−BEY. (GAZTAMBIDE−ARANDES, LAURA) (Entered: 02/02/2017)

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 71 of 97

04/14/2017 04/14/2017 04/17/2017 05/12/2017
05/15/2017 05/17/2017 05/17/2017
05/17/2017 05/18/2017 06/05/2017

81 Joint MOTION to Produce Documents Pursuant to the Amended Protective Order by UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL. (SCUDDER, MICHAEL) (Entered: 04/14/2017)
Motions Referred: RE: 81 Joint MOTION to Produce Documents Pursuant to the Amended Protective Order to MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER. (Kemp, Donita) (Entered: 04/14/2017)
TEXT ORDER granting 81 Motion to Produce Documents Pursuant to the Amended Protective Order as set forth in motion. Issued by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 4/17/2017. (Lee, Pedra) (Entered: 04/17/2017)
82 Unopposed MOTION to add Andrew Brennan as Defendant−Intervenor filed by LUIS ACOSTA, CHRISTOPHER JACKSON, RAMONIA JONES, ANGIE MILLS, KEVIN MILLS, JULIA NIEVES, LAURA ORNELAS, CECILIA POLANCE, TAMIKA WILLIAMS, STAR WINGATE−BEY. Response to Motion due by 6/2/2017 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(GAZTAMBIDE−ARANDES, LAURA) Modified docket on 5/15/2017 to edit title of Motion. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
Motions Referred: RE: 82 MOTION (Unopposed), to MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 05/15/2017)
83 MOTION to Compel Production of Applicant Data by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. (MCCARTHY, THOMAS) (Entered: 05/17/2017)
84 MEMORANDUM re 83 MOTION to Compel Production of Applicant Data by Plaintiff STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Harvard Order, # 2 Exhibit Harvard Transcript (excerpt))(MCCARTHY, THOMAS) (Entered: 05/17/2017)
Set Response Deadline re: 83 MOTION to Compel Production of Applicant Data. Responses due by 6/5/2017. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
TEXT ORDER granting 82 Unopposed Motion to Add Defendant−Intervenor. Andrew Brennan shall be added as an additional defendant−intervenor in this action. Issued by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 5/18/2017. (Lee, Pedra) (Entered: 05/18/2017)
85 RESPONSE filed by Defendants ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JEFFERSON W. BROWN, W. LOWRY CAUDILL, PHILLIP L. CLAY, HAYWOOD D. COCHRANE, DONALD WILLIAMS CURTIS, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, CHARELS G. DUCKETT, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ALSTON GARDNER, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER T. GRAUER, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, KELLY MATTHEWS HOPKINS, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN LERNER, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, ANDREW HENRY POWELL, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, SALLIE SHUPING−RUSSELL, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, DWIGHT D. STONE, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY re 83 MOTION to Compel Production of Applicant Data filed by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. filed by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JEFFERSON W. BROWN, W. LOWRY CAUDILL, PHILLIP L. CLAY, HAYWOOD D. COCHRANE, DONALD WILLIAMS CURTIS, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, CHARELS G. DUCKETT, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ALSTON GARDNER, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER T. GRAUER, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, KELLY MATTHEWS HOPKINS, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN LERNER, STEVEN B.

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 72 of 97

06/06/2017 06/09/2017 06/09/2017 06/09/2017
06/12/2017 06/14/2017 06/19/2017
06/20/2017

LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, ANDREW HENRY POWELL, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, SALLIE SHUPING−RUSSELL, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, DWIGHT D. STONE, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. Replies due by 6/12/2017 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − UNC0079662, # 2 Exhibit 2 − UNC0079668, # 3 Exhibit 3 − UNC0079674, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Dec. 8, 2016 Letter, # 5 Exhibit 5 − Feb 9 2017 Email, # 6 Exhibit 6 − UNC0194052)(SCUDDER, MICHAEL) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
Reset Motion Deadlines re 83 MOTION to Compel Production of Applicant Data. Replies due by 6/12/2017. (Contreras, Jamie) (Entered: 06/06/2017)
86 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Data Regarding Student Preparedness and Performance by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. Response to Motion due by 6/23/2017. (RULEY, DANIEL) Modified on 6/12/2017 to replace main document 86 with correct image. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 06/09/2017)
87 Plaintiff's BRIEF In Support of Motion to Compel Production of documents and Data Regarding Student Preparedness and Performance. (RULEY, DANIEL) Modified on 6/12/2017 and replaced main document 87 with correct image on 6/12/2017. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 06/09/2017)
88 DECLARATION filed by Plaintiff STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. re 86 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Data Regarding Student Preparedness and Performance filed by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L)(RULEY, DANIEL) Modified on 6/12/2017 to replace main document 88 with correct image. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 06/09/2017)
89 REPLY in Support re 83 MOTION to Compel Production of Applicant Data filed by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C − Reports)(RULEY, DANIEL) Modified on 6/13/2017 to correct title of document and link to correct docket entry (Taylor, Abby). (Entered: 06/12/2017)
Motions Referred: RE: 83 MOTION to Compel Production of Applicant Data, to MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER. (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 06/14/2017)
90 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney EMILY P. TURNER on behalf of Intervenor Defendants LUIS ACOSTA, ANDREW BRENNAN, CHRISTOPHER JACKSON, RAMONIA JONES, ANGIE MILLS, KEVIN MILLS, JULIA NIEVES, LAURA ORNELAS, CECILIA POLANCE, TAMIKA WILLIAMS, STAR WINGATE−BEY (TURNER, EMILY) (Entered: 06/19/2017)
91 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney LARA A. FLATH on behalf of Defendants ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY (FLATH, LARA) (Entered: 06/20/2017)

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 73 of 97

06/23/2017
06/23/2017 06/23/2017
06/30/2017 06/30/2017 06/30/2017 06/30/2017 07/03/2017 07/11/2017 07/19/2017 07/27/2017

92 RESPONSE in Opposition re 86 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Data Regarding Student Preparedness and Performance filed by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. filed by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. Replies due by 7/10/2017 (SCUDDER, MICHAEL) (Entered: 06/23/2017)
93 Additional Attachments to 92 Response in Opposition (Exhibit 1). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2, # 2 Exhibit 3)(SCUDDER, MICHAEL) (Entered: 06/23/2017)
94 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel Production of Applicant Data by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. Response to Motion due by 7/14/2017 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel Production of Applicant Data, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit D to Supplemental Memorandum (Email Communications), # 3 Exhibit Exhibit E to Supplemental Memorandum (Discovery Request), # 4 Text of Proposed Order Order)(RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 06/23/2017)
95 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 86 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Data Regarding Student Preparedness and Performance by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
Motions Referred: RE: 94 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel Production of Applicant Data, 95 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 86 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Data Regarding Student Preparedness and Performance , to MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER (Williamson, Wanda) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
96 ORDER. Signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 6/30/2017, granting 94 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to file Supplemental Memorandum in support of Motion to Compel Production of Applicant Data. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
97 ORDER. Signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 6/30/2017, granting 95 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time until 7/3/2017 to file its Reply Brief in support of its Motion to Compel. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
98 Plaintiff's Reply BRIEF re 86 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Data Regarding Student Preparedness and Performance . (RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 07/03/2017)
Motions Referred: RE: 86 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Data Regarding Student Preparedness and Performance, to MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER. (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 07/11/2017)
99 NOTICE of Hearing: Motion Hearing as to 83 Motion to Compel and 86 Motion to Compel set for 7/27/2017 09:30 AM in Durham Courtroom #1 before MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER. (Garrett, Kim) (Entered: 07/19/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER in Durham: Motion Hearing held on 7/27/2017 re 86 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Data Regarding Student Preparedness and Performance filed by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC., 83 MOTION to Compel Production of Applicant Data filed by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. For the reasons stated from the bench, 86 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents and Data Regarding Student Preparedness and Performance is hereby DENIED and 83 MOTION to Compel Production of Applicant Data is hereby GRANTED; Plaintiff's

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 74 of 97

08/04/2017 08/09/2017 08/17/2017
08/18/2017 08/18/2017 08/22/2017
09/06/2017 10/25/2017

counsel instructed to prepare a proposed order for the Court's consideration no later than Friday, August 4, 2017. Plaintiff's counsel further instructed to submit the proposed order to Defendants' counsel prior to submitting the proposed order to the Court. (Attorney(s) Thomas McCarthy, Bryan Weir, and Daniel Alan Ruley appeared on behalf of plaintiff; Attorney(s) Stephanie Brennan, Michael Scudder, and Lara Flath appeared on behalf of defendants; Proceedings Recorded) (Kemp, Donita) (Entered: 07/27/2017)
100 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney BRYAN K. WEIR on behalf of Plaintiff STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. (WEIR, BRYAN) (Entered: 08/04/2017)
101 ORDER. Signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 8/9/2017, that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Applicant Data (Docket Entry 83 ) is GRANTED, whereas plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Data Regarding Student Preparedness and Performance (Docket Entry 86 ) is DENIED. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 08/09/2017)
102 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time for Case Deadlines by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(SCUDDER, MICHAEL) (Entered: 08/17/2017)
Motions Referred: RE: 102 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time for Case Deadlines, to MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER. (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 08/18/2017)
103 NOTICE of Association of Attorney by JON M. GREENBAUM on behalf of Intervenor Defendants LUIS ACOSTA, ANDREW BRENNAN, CHRISTOPHER JACKSON, RAMONIA JONES, ANGIE MILLS, KEVIN MILLS, JULIA NIEVES, LAURA ORNELAS, CECILIA POLANCE, TAMIKA WILLIAMS, STAR WINGATE−BEY (GREENBAUM, JON) (Entered: 08/18/2017)
104 ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 08/22/2017, that the Motion (Docket Entry 102 ) is GRANTED and the case deadlines are extended as follows: 1. All expert discovery shall be completed by May 31, 2018. Reports required under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) and disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(2)(C) shall be due during the proposed discovery period as follows: (a) Affirmative expert reports by December 15, 2017 (b) Rebuttal expert reports by February 28, 2018 (c) Reply expert reports by April 13, 2018 (d) All trial experts shall be deposed during the period between April 13, 2018 and May 31, 2018. 2. The deadline for filing any motions for summary judgment is July 27, 2018. Briefs in opposition to summary judgment shall be due September 10, 2018, and reply briefs shall be due October 10, 2018. 3. The current trial date is continued to a date later determined by the Court. (Garland, Leah) (Entered: 08/22/2017)
105 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney BRENDA L. SHUM on behalf of Intervenor Defendants LUIS ACOSTA, ANDREW BRENNAN, CHRISTOPHER JACKSON, RAMONIA JONES, ANGIE MILLS, KEVIN MILLS, JULIA NIEVES, LAURA ORNELAS, CECILIA POLANCE, TAMIKA WILLIAMS, STAR WINGATE−BEY (SHUM, BRENDA) (Entered: 09/06/2017)
106 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J.

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 75 of 97

10/25/2017 10/25/2017 10/25/2017

HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (SCUDDER, MICHAEL) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
107 MEMORANDUM filed by Defendants ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY re 106 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1. Excerpts of Plaintiffs Objections and Responses to Defendants First Combined Discovery Requests, # 2 Exhibit 2. Excerpts of Deposition of Edward Blum, # 3 Exhibit 3. Excerpts of Deposition of Standing Member #1 (Redacted), # 4 Exhibit 4. Excerpts of SFFA Original Bylaws, # 5 Exhibit 5. Excerpts of SFFA Amended Bylaws, # 6 Exhibit 6. Excerpts of Plaintiffs Second Amended Objections and Responses to Defendants First Combined Discovery Requests (Under Seal), # 7 Exhibit 7. Excerpts of Form 990−PF: Return of Private Foundation for The Searle Freedom Trust, 2015, # 8 Exhibit 8. Excerpts of 501(c)(3) Application of Students for Fair Admissions, # 9 Exhibit 9. Excerpt of SFFAs Articles of Incorporation) (SCUDDER, MICHAEL) Modified on 10/26/2017 to remove duplicate text. (Sheets, Jamie) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
108 MOTION to Seal [If the party filing this motion is not the party claiming confidentiality, the party claiming confidentiality will have 14 days to file a Brief in accordance with Local Rule 5.4] by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (SCUDDER, MICHAEL) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
109 SEALED UNREDACTED DOCUMENTS filed by Defendants ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R.

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 76 of 97

11/08/2017 11/15/2017 11/15/2017 11/15/2017
11/15/2017

DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY re 106 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1), 107 MEMORANDUM, 108 MOTION to Seal [If the party filing this motion is not the party claiming confidentiality, the party claiming confidentiality will have 14 days to file a Brief in accordance with Local Rule 5.4], (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1. Excerpts of Plaintiffs Objections and Responses to Defendants First Combined Discovery Requests, # 2 Exhibit 2. Excerpts of Deposition of Edward Blum, # 3 Exhibit 3. Excerpts of Deposition of Standing Member #1 (Redacted), # 4 Exhibit 4. Excerpts of SFFA Original Bylaws, # 5 Exhibit 5. Excerpts of SFFA Amended Bylaws, # 6 Exhibit 6. Excerpts of Plaintiffs Second Amended Objections and Responses to Defendants First Combined Discovery Requests (Under Seal), # 7 Exhibit 7. Excerpts of Form 990−PF: Return of Private Foundation for The Searle Freedom Trust, 2015, # 8 Exhibit 8. Excerpts of 501(c)(3) Application of Students for Fair Admissions, # 9 Exhibit 9. Excerpt of SFFAs Articles of Incorporation)(SCUDDER, MICHAEL). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 3. Excerpts of Deposition of Standing Member #1 (Unredacted and filed Under Seal), # 2 Exhibit 6. Excerpts of Plaintiffs Second Amended Objections and Responses to Defendants First Combined Discovery Requests (Filed Under Seal)) (SCUDDER, MICHAEL) Modified on 10/26/2017 to remove duplicate text. (Sheets, Jamie) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
110 RESPONSE in Support re 108 MOTION to Seal [If the party filing this motion is not the party claiming confidentiality, the party claiming confidentiality will have 14 days to file a Brief in accordance with Local Rule 5.4] filed by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Edward Blum)(MCCARTHY, THOMAS) (Entered: 11/08/2017)
111 MOTION to Seal [If the party filing this motion is not the party claiming confidentiality, the party claiming confidentiality will have 14 days to file a Brief in accordance with Local Rule 5.4] by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. Response to Motion due by 12/6/2017 (RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
112 Plaintiff's BRIEF In Support of Motion to File Under Seal. (RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
113 RESPONSE in Opposition re 106 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) filed by STEVEN B. LONG, HARI H. MATH, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR., UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, PETER D. HANS, HENRY W. HINTON, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, DAVID M. POWERS, SCOTT LAMPE, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR., UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, LAURA I. WILEY, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, PHILLIP D. WALKER, H. FRANK FRAINGER, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, CAROL L. FOLT, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR., G. LEROY LAIL, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RAIFORD TRASK, III, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, THOMAS W. ROSS, ALEX PARKER, JAMES W. DEAN, JR., ROGER AIKEN, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, HANNAH D. GAGE, THERENCE O. PICKETT, MARY ANN MAXWELL, J. CRAIG SOUZA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, JOAN G. MACNEILL, STEPHEN M. FARMER, RODNEY E. HOOD, R. DOYLE PARRISH, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, ROBERT S. RIPPY REDACTED Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. Replies due by 11/29/2017 (Attachments: # 1 REDACTED Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 REDACTED Exhibit G, # 8 REDACTED Exhibit H, # 9 REDACTED Exhibit I, # 10 REDACTED Exhibit J, # 11 REDACTED Exhibit K, # 12 REDACTED Exhibit L, # 13 REDACTED Exhibit M, # 14 REDACTED Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 REDACTED Declaration)(RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
114 SEALED UNREDACTED DOCUMENTS PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS filed by Defendants ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C.

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 77 of 97

11/29/2017 11/29/2017

FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY, Plaintiff STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 SEALED UNREDACTED Exh. A, # 2 SEALED UNREDACTED Exh. G, # 3 SEALED UNREDACTED Exh. H, # 4 SEALED UNREDACTED Exh. I, # 5 SEALED UNREDACTED Exh. J, # 6 SEALED UNREDACTED Exh. K, # 7 SEALED UNREDACTED Exh. L, # 8 SEALED UNREDACTED Exh. M, # 9 SEALED UNREDACTED Exh. N, # 10 SEALED UNREDACTED Declaration)(RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
115 REPLY, filed by Defendants ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY, to Response to 106 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) filed by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1. Not confidential, # 2 Exhibit 2. Placer sheet (Confidential, filed under seal), # 3 Exhibit 3. Placer sheet (Confidential, filed under seal), # 4 Exhibit 4.Placer sheet (Confidential, filed under seal), # 5 Exhibit 5.Placer sheet (Confidential, filed under seal))(SCUDDER, MICHAEL) (Entered: 11/29/2017)
116 MOTION to Seal [If the party filing this motion is not the party claiming confidentiality, the party claiming confidentiality will have 14 days to file a Brief in accordance with Local Rule 5.4] by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT,

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 78 of 97

11/29/2017

DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (SCUDDER, MICHAEL) (Entered: 11/29/2017)
117 SEALED UNREDACTED DOCUMENTS filed by Defendants ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY re 116 MOTION to Seal [If the party filing this motion is not the party claiming confidentiality, the party claiming confidentiality will have 14 days to file a Brief in accordance with Local Rule 5.4] by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (SCUDDER, MICHAEL), 115 REPLY, filed by Defendants ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY, to Response to 106 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) filed by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 79 of 97

11/30/2017 12/01/2017 12/04/2017 12/05/2017 12/05/2017 12/07/2017
12/07/2017 12/08/2017 12/12/2017
12/13/2017
12/15/2017 12/21/2017 01/30/2018

NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1. Not confidential, # 2 Exhibit 2. Placer sheet (Confidential, filed under seal), # 3 Exhibit 3. Placer sheet (Confidential, filed under seal), # 4 Exhibit 4.Placer sheet (Confidential, filed under seal), # 5 Exhibit 5.Placer sheet (Confidential, filed under seal))(SCUDDER, MICHAEL). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2. Excerpt of Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Objections and Responses, # 2 Exhibit 3. Plaintiff's Fifth Supplemental Response to Interrogatories 4 and 6, # 3 Exhibit 4. Plaintiff's Third Supplemental Response to Interrogatories 4 and 6, # 4 Exhibit 5. Plaintiff's Fourth Supplemental Response to Interrogatories 4 and 6)(SCUDDER, MICHAEL) (Entered: 11/29/2017)
118 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time for Case Deadlines by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. (MCCARTHY, THOMAS) (Entered: 11/30/2017)
Motion Referred: RE: 118 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time for Case Deadlines, to MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER. (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
119 ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 12/4/2017, that the parties' Joint Motion for Extension of Time for Case Deadlines (Doc. 118 ) is GRANTED as set out herein. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 12/04/2017)
120 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. (MCCARTHY, THOMAS) (Entered: 12/05/2017)
121 MEMORANDUM re 120 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply by Plaintiff STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. (MCCARTHY, THOMAS) (Entered: 12/05/2017)
Telephone Notice to/from Attorney Stephanie Brennan on 12/7/2017 Re: 120 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Surreply. Counsel advised the Clerk's Office that Defendants have no position on the motion and will not be filing a response. (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
Motion Submitted: 120 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply to JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS. (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
122 ORDER signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 12/8/2017, that Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 120 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff has leave to file a Surreply to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 12/08/2017)
123 SURREPLY filed by Plaintiff STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. re 106 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) filed by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. (MCCARTHY, THOMAS) (Entered: 12/12/2017)
124 RESPONSE in Support re 110 Response in Support of Motion, 108 MOTION to Seal [If the party filing this motion is not the party claiming confidentiality, the party claiming confidentiality will have 14 days to file a Brief in accordance with Local Rule 5.4] Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Motion to File Under Seal filed by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. Replies due by 12/27/2017 (RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 12/13/2017)
125 Corrected document re 124 Response in Support of Motion,. (RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 12/15/2017)
Motions Submitted: 106 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1), 108 MOTION to Seal, 111 MOTION to Seal, 116 MOTION to Seal to JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS. (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 12/21/2017)
126 STIPULATION and Motion to Permit Defendant−Intervenors Access to Certain Confidential Information (Joint) by LUIS ACOSTA, ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, ANDREW BRENNAN, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, CHRISTOPHER JACKSON, RAMONIA JONES, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, ANGIE

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 80 of 97

02/08/2018 02/09/2018 03/07/2018 03/07/2018 03/13/2018
03/16/2018 05/16/2018
05/17/2018 05/22/2018 05/31/2018

MILLS, KEVIN MILLS, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, JULIA NIEVES, LAURA ORNELAS, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, CECILIA POLANCE, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY, TAMIKA WILLIAMS, STAR WINGATE−BEY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(FLATH, LARA) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
Motion Referred: RE: 126 Motion to Permit Defendant−Intervenors Access to Certain Confidential Information, to MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER. (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 02/08/2018)
127 ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 2/9/2018. The Joint Stipulation and Motion to Permit Defendant−Intervenors Access to Certain Confidential Information (Docket Entry 126 ) is GRANTED. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 02/09/2018)
128 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time for Case Deadlines by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 03/07/2018)
Motion Referred: RE: 128 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time for Case Deadlines, to MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER. (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 03/07/2018)
129 ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 3/13/2018. The parties' Joint Motion for Extension of Time for Case Deadlines (Docket Entry 128 ) is GRANTED as set out herein. Expert Discovery due by 7/23/2018. Motions for summary judgment due by 9/21/2018; Briefs in opposition due by 11/5/2018; Reply Briefs due by 12/5/2018. There will be no further extensions and this case shall be placed on the United States District Judge Loretta C. Biggs' first available Civil Master in 2019. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 03/13/2018)
130 NOTICE of Hearing: Master Trial Calendar: APRIL Jury Trial set for 4/1/2019 at 09:30 AM in Unassigned Courtroom. Trial Briefs, etc. deadline set for 3/11/2019.(Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 03/16/2018)
131 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER by on behalf of ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(SCUDDER, MICHAEL) (Entered: 05/16/2018)
Motion Referred: RE: 131 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER , to MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER. (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 05/17/2018)
TEXT ORDER granting 131 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney MICHAEL YALE SCUDDER is withdrawn as counsel for Defendants and is discharged from any further duties or responsibilities herein. Issued by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 5/22/2018. (Lee, Pedra) (Entered: 05/22/2018)
132 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney JAMIE L. CROOK on behalf of Intervenor Defendants LUIS ACOSTA, ANDREW BRENNAN, CHRISTOPHER JACKSON,

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 81 of 97

06/01/2018 06/14/2018
07/27/2018 08/03/2018 08/03/2018

RAMONIA JONES, ANGIE MILLS, KEVIN MILLS, JULIA NIEVES, LAURA ORNELAS, CECILIA POLANCE, TAMIKA WILLIAMS, STAR WINGATE−BEY (CROOK, JAMIE) (Entered: 05/31/2018)
133 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney PATRICK J. FITZGERALD on behalf of Defendants ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY (FITZGERALD, PATRICK) (Entered: 06/01/2018)
134 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AND SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL on behalf of Defendants ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. NORA F. SULLIVAN is substituted as counsel for Defendants. Attorney MATTHEW T. TULCHIN terminated. (SULLIVAN, NORA) (Entered: 06/14/2018)
135 STIPULATION (Joint) by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (FLATH, LARA) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
136 MOTION to Exclude Late−Designated Witnesses and Late−Produced Documents by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. Response to Motion due by 8/24/2018 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9)(RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
137 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 136 MOTION to Exclude Late−Designated Witnesses and Late−Produced Documents (TEXT OF PROPOSED ORDER). (RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 08/03/2018)

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 82 of 97

08/03/2018 08/03/2018 08/21/2018 08/21/2018 08/22/2018 08/22/2018
08/22/2018
08/22/2018 08/23/2018

138 BRIEF re 136 MOTION to Exclude Late−Designated Witnesses and Late−Produced Documents by Plaintiff STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. filed by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. (RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
139 PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF re 136 MOTION to Exclude Late−Designated Witnesses and Late−Produced Documents by Plaintiff STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. filed by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9)(RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
140 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney JAMIE L. CROOK by on behalf of LUIS ACOSTA, ANDREW BRENNAN, CHRISTOPHER JACKSON, RAMONIA JONES, ANGIE MILLS, KEVIN MILLS, JULIA NIEVES, LAURA ORNELAS, CECILIA POLANCE, TAMIKA WILLIAMS, STAR WINGATE−BEY. Responses due by 9/11/2018 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Motion to Withdraw as Counsel)(CROOK, JAMIE) (Entered: 08/21/2018)
141 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney GENEVIEVE B. TORRES on behalf of Intervenor Defendants LUIS ACOSTA, ANDREW BRENNAN, CHRISTOPHER JACKSON, RAMONIA JONES, ANGIE MILLS, KEVIN MILLS, JULIA NIEVES, LAURA ORNELAS, CECILIA POLANCE, TAMIKA WILLIAMS, STAR WINGATE−BEY (TORRES, GENEVIEVE) (Entered: 08/21/2018)
Motion Referred: RE: 140 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney JAMIE L. CROOK , to MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER. (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 08/22/2018)
142 Joint MOTION to Exceed Page Limit (Word Count Limitation) by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(FLATH, LARA) (Entered: 08/22/2018)
143 Joint MOTION for Removal of Jury Trial from April Master Calendar by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(FLATH, LARA) (Entered: 08/22/2018)
Motions Submitted: 142 Joint MOTION to Exceed Page Limit (Word Count Limitation), 143 Joint MOTION for Removal of Jury Trial from April Master Calendar to JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS. (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 08/22/2018)
TEXT ORDER granting 140 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney JAMIE L. CROOK is withdrawn as counsel for Defendants−Intervenors and is discharged from

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 83 of 97

08/24/2018
08/28/2018 08/28/2018 09/06/2018 09/06/2018 09/10/2018 09/11/2018 09/11/2018 09/17/2018 09/18/2018

any further duties or responsibilities herein. Issued by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 8/23/2018. (Lee, Pedra) (Entered: 08/23/2018)
144 RESPONSE in Opposition re 136 MOTION to Exclude Late−Designated Witnesses and Late−Produced Documents filed by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. filed by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. Replies due by 9/7/2018 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19)(COMBS, MARIANNE) (Entered: 08/24/2018)
145 ORDER signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 8/28/2018. The Joint Motion to Extend Limitation on Length of Briefs, (ECF No. 142 ) is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff and UNC−Defendants may file briefs in support of any motion for summary judgment and responsive briefs of no more than 9,500 words each. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 08/28/2018)
146 ORDER signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 8/28/2018. The Joint Motion to Remove Case from April Master Calendar, (ECF No. 143 ) is GRANTED and the case shall proceed as stated herein. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 08/28/2018)
147 REPLY, filed by Plaintiff STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC., to Response to 136 MOTION to Exclude Late−Designated Witnesses and Late−Produced Documents filed by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 09/06/2018)
Motion Referred: RE: 136 MOTION to Exclude Late−Designated Witnesses and Late−Produced Documents, to MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER. (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 09/06/2018)
148 MOTION to Expedite Consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Late−Designated Witnesses and Late−Produced Documents by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. (RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 09/10/2018)
Telephone call to/from Attorney Stephanie Brennan on 9/11/2018, Re: 148 Motion to Expedite. She advised the Clerk's Office that they take no position and will not be filing a response. (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 09/11/2018)
Motion Referred: RE: 148 MOTION to Expedite Consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Late−Designated Witnesses and Late−Produced Documents, to MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER. (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 09/11/2018)
Email notification on 9/17/2018 to all counsel on record re: Telephone Conference set for 9/18/2018 10:00 AM with MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER. Parties emailed instructions for initiating call. (Garrett, Kim) (Entered: 09/17/2018)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER: Telephone Conference held on 9/18/2018. Attorneys Daniel Alan M. Ruley and Patrick Strawbridge present for Plaintiff. Attorneys Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Stephanie A. Brennan, Lara A. Flath and Marianne H. Combs present for Defendants. Attorney Laura J. Gaztambide−Arandes present for Intervenor Defendants. By virtue of the telephone conference, the Court granted 148 Plaintiffs Motion for Expedited Consideration of Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Late−Designated Witnesses and

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 84 of 97

09/18/2018 09/19/2018
09/19/2018 09/29/2018 01/17/2019
01/18/2019

Late−Produced Documents. Parties discussed 136 Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Late−Designated Witnesses and Late−Produced Documents. The parties stated that they had not further discussed the motion since the scheduling of the telephone conference; however, by notation in the parties briefs, the issues now pending in the motion are limited to whether one late−designated witness, Provost Robert Blouin, should be limited in his testimony as a fact witness, and whether Defendants late−produced documents should be excluded. The parties maintain their positions with regard to the motion. The parties confirmed that a trial date in this matter is not set at this time. The Court took this matter under advisement. Written order upon ruling on 136 Motion forthcoming. (Garrett, Kim) (Entered: 09/18/2018)
TEXT ORDER by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER granting 148 Plaintiffs Motion for Expedited Consideration of Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Late−Designated Witnesses and Late−Produced Documents. See Minute Entry dated 9/18/2018.(Garrett, Kim) (Entered: 09/18/2018)
149 ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 9/19/2018. Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Late−Designated Witnesses and Late−Produced Documents (Docket Entry 136 ) is DENIED. FURTHER, that discovery shall be reopened for the limited purpose of allowing Plaintiff an opportunity to make appropriate discovery requests, depose the UNC officials who authored or created the late−disclosed documents, and submit supplemental expert reports addressing them. As such, the limited discovery shall be completed no later than Wednesday, December 19, 2018, and summary judgment motions shall be filed no later than Friday, January 18, 2019. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 09/19/2018)
Set/Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines. Limited Discovery due by 12/19/2018. Summary Judgment Motions due by 1/18/2019. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 09/19/2018)
150 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 106 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; GRANTING 108 Motion to Seal; GRANTING 111 Motion to Seal; GRANTING 116 Motion to Seal. Signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 09/29/2018. (Samuel−Priestley, Tina) (Entered: 09/29/2018)
151 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney AMY L. VAN GELDER on behalf of Defendants ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY (VAN GELDER, AMY) (Entered: 01/17/2019)
152 MOTION for Summary Judgment by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (FITZGERALD, PATRICK) (Entered: 01/18/2019)

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 85 of 97

01/18/2019
01/18/2019 01/18/2019 01/18/2019 01/18/2019 01/18/2019 01/18/2019

153 MEMORANDUM filed by Defendants ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY re 152 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (FITZGERALD, PATRICK) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
154 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 153 Memorandum,,,,,, . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30, # 31 Exhibit 31, # 32 Exhibit 32, # 33 Exhibit 33, # 34 Exhibit 34, # 35 Exhibit 35)(FITZGERALD, PATRICK) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
155 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 153 Memorandum,,,,,, . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 36, # 2 Exhibit 37, # 3 Exhibit 38, # 4 Exhibit 39, # 5 Exhibit 40, # 6 Exhibit 41, # 7 Exhibit 42, # 8 Exhibit 43, # 9 Exhibit 44, # 10 Exhibit 45, # 11 Exhibit 46, # 12 Exhibit 47, # 13 Exhibit 48)(FITZGERALD, PATRICK) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
156 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 153 Memorandum,,,,,, . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 49, # 2 Exhibit 50, # 3 Exhibit 51, # 4 Exhibit 52, # 5 Exhibit 53, # 6 Exhibit 54, # 7 Exhibit 55, # 8 Exhibit 56, # 9 Exhibit 57, # 10 Exhibit 58, # 11 Exhibit 59, # 12 Exhibit 60, # 13 Exhibit 61, # 14 Exhibit 62, # 15 Exhibit 63, # 16 Exhibit 64)(FITZGERALD, PATRICK) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
157 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 153 Memorandum,,,,,, . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 65, # 2 Exhibit 66, # 3 Exhibit 67, # 4 Exhibit 68, # 5 Exhibit 69, # 6 Exhibit 70, # 7 Exhibit 71, # 8 Exhibit 72, # 9 Exhibit 73, # 10 Exhibit 74, # 11 Exhibit 75, # 12 Exhibit 76, # 13 Exhibit 77, # 14 Exhibit 78, # 15 Exhibit 79, # 16 Exhibit 80, # 17 Exhibit 81, # 18 Exhibit 82, # 19 Exhibit 83, # 20 Exhibit 84, # 21 Exhibit 85, # 22 Exhibit 86, # 23 Exhibit 87, # 24 Exhibit 88, # 25 Exhibit 89, # 26 Exhibit 90, # 27 Exhibit 91, # 28 Exhibit 92, # 29 Exhibit 93)(FITZGERALD, PATRICK) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
158 MOTION for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56 by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. Response to Motion due by 2/19/2019 (RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
159 BRIEF re 158 MOTION for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56 . (RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 01/18/2019)

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 86 of 97

01/18/2019 01/18/2019 01/18/2019
01/18/2019
01/18/2019 01/18/2019 01/18/2019 01/18/2019 01/18/2019
01/18/2019

160 DECLARATION filed by Plaintiff STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. re 158 MOTION for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56 of Peter Arcidiacono filed by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
161 DECLARATION of Richard Kahlenberg filed by Plaintiff STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. re 158 MOTION for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56 filed by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
162 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 153 Memorandum,,,,,, . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 94, # 2 Exhibit 95, # 3 Exhibit 96, # 4 Exhibit 97, # 5 Exhibit 98, # 6 Exhibit 99, # 7 Exhibit 100, # 8 Exhibit 101, # 9 Exhibit 102, # 10 Exhibit 103, # 11 Exhibit 104, # 12 Exhibit 105, # 13 Exhibit 106, # 14 Exhibit 107, # 15 Exhibit 108, # 16 Exhibit 109, # 17 Exhibit 110, # 18 Exhibit 111, # 19 Exhibit 112, # 20 Exhibit 113, # 21 Exhibit 114, # 22 Exhibit 115, # 23 Exhibit 116, # 24 Exhibit 117, # 25 Exhibit 118, # 26 Exhibit 119, # 27 Exhibit 120, # 28 Exhibit 121, # 29 Exhibit 122, # 30 Exhibit 123, # 31 Exhibit 124, # 32 Exhibit 125)(FITZGERALD, PATRICK) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
163 DECLARATION of THOMAS McCARTHY filed by Plaintiff STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. re 158 MOTION for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56 filed by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit, # 27 Exhibit, # 28 Exhibit, # 29 Exhibit, # 30 Exhibit, # 31 Exhibit, # 32 Exhibit, # 33 Exhibit, # 34 Exhibit, # 35 Exhibit, # 36 Exhibit, # 37 Exhibit, # 38 Exhibit)(RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
164 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 153 Memorandum,,,,,, . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 126)(FITZGERALD, PATRICK) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
165 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 163 Declaration,,, Exhs 39 − 42. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
166 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 163 Declaration,,, Exhs 43−49 and 56−65. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Errata, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit)(RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
167 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 163 Declaration,,, Exhs 66−77. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit)(RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
168 MOTION for Leave to File a Brief as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by ARCELORMITTAL USA LLC, ARIEL INVESTMENTS LLC, CAPITOL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC., CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., CUMMINS INC., DUKE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., EBAY INC., ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, ENTERGY CORPORATION, ERNST & YOUNG, GENERAL MOTORS LLC, GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC, THE HERSHEY COMPANY, HP INC., IBM CORPORATION, IKEA RETAIL US LLC, KPMG LLP, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR STOCK CAR AUTO RACING, INC., PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC., PEPSICO, INC., RED HAT, INC., THE REDWOODS GROUP, INC., REPLACEMENTS, LTD., RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE, TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC., UNITED AIRLINES, INC., YUM! BRANDS, INC.. Responses due by 2/8/2019 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Brief as Amici Curiae (Conditionally Filed), # 2 Exhibit 1. Nielsen Report, # 3 Exhibit 2. McKinsey Report, # 4 Exhibit 3. Herring Report, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(FELDMAN, STEPHEN) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
169 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 163 Declaration,,, Exh 78. (RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 01/18/2019)

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 87 of 97

01/18/2019 01/18/2019
01/24/2019
01/24/2019 01/24/2019 01/24/2019 02/01/2019

170 MOTION to Seal [If the party filing this motion is not the party claiming confidentiality, the party claiming confidentiality will have 14 days to file a Brief in accordance with Local Rule 5.4] by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. Response to Motion due by 2/8/2019 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
171 PERMANENTLY SEALED EXHIBITS re 170 MOTION to Seal [If the party filing this motion is not the party claiming confidentiality, the party claiming confidentiality will have 14 days to file a Brief in accordance with Local Rule 5.4] by Plaintiff STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC., Defendants UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF TRUSTEES. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(RULEY, DANIEL) Modified on 10/1/2019 to mark as permanently sealed per 190 Memorandum Opinion and Order. (Sheets, Jamie) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
172 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time for Remaining Summary Judgment Briefing by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(FLATH, LARA) (Entered: 01/24/2019)
Motion Referred: RE: 172 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time for Remaining Summary Judgment Briefing, to MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER. (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 01/24/2019)
TEXT ORDER granting 172 Motion for Extension of Time for Remaining Summary Judgment Briefing. For good cause shown, any briefs in opposition to motions for summary judgment shall be due March 4, 2019 and any reply briefs shall be due April 4, 2019. Issued by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 1/24/2019.(Lee, Pedra) (Entered: 01/24/2019)
Set/Reset Deadlines re: 152 MOTION for Summary Judgment and 158 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Responses due by 3/4/2019; Replies due by 4/4/2019. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 01/25/2019)
173 RESPONSE in Support re 170 MOTION to Seal [If the party filing this motion is not the party claiming confidentiality, the party claiming confidentiality will have 14 days to file a Brief in accordance with Local Rule 5.4] filed by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (FLATH, LARA) (Entered: 02/01/2019)

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 88 of 97

02/12/2019 02/13/2019 03/04/2019
03/04/2019 03/04/2019 03/04/2019

Motion Submitted: 168 MOTION for Leave to File a Brief as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment to JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS. (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 02/12/2019)
174 ORDER signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 2/12/2019. The motion for leave to file a brief as amici curiae in support of Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 168 ) is GRANTED. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 02/13/2019)
175 RESPONSE in Opposition re 158 MOTION for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56 filed by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. filed by ROGER AIKEN, W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (FITZGERALD, PATRICK) (Entered: 03/04/2019)
176 Additional Attachments to Main Document re 175 Response in Opposition to Motion,,, . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 127, # 2 Exhibit 128, # 3 Exhibit 129, # 4 Exhibit 130, # 5 Exhibit 131, # 6 Exhibit 132)(FITZGERALD, PATRICK) (Entered: 03/04/2019)
177 Opposition BRIEF re 152 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. filed by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. (RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 03/04/2019)
178 MOTION for Leave to File by 18MillionRising.org, AAPIs for Civic Empowerment Education Fund, After Bruce, American Citizens for Justice, American Muslim Voice Foundation, Asian Pacific Islander Americans for Civic Empowerment (APACE), API Equality − Northern California, Arab American Action Network, Arizona Asian & Pacific Islander American Vote Table, Asian & Latino Solidarity Alliance of Central Virginia, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Asian American Political Alliance (AAPA), University of California, Berkeley, Asian Community Development Council (ACDC), Asian Counseling and Referral Service, Asian Law Alliance, Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Los Angeles County, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA), AFL−CIO, Asian Pacific Policy and Planning Council, Asian/Pacific Islander Law Students Association at Univerity of California, Los Angeles School of Law, Association for Asian American Yale Alumni (AAAYA), Baltimore Asian Resistance in Solidarity, Berkeley Law Asian Pacific American Law Students Association (APALSA), Chinese American Citizens Alliance (C.A.C.A.), Los Angeles Chapter, Chinese American Progressive Action, Chinese for Affirmative Action (CAA), Chinese Progressive Association, Claremont South Asian Student Association, Coalition for a Diverse Harvard, Coalition for Asian American Children and Families (CACF), Council on American−Islamic Relations, California, Duke Asian American Studies Program, Duke Asian Students Association, East Coast Asian American Student Union, Empowering Pacific Islander Communities, GAPIMNY − Empowering Queer & Trans Asian Pacific Islanders, Harvard Asian American Women's Association, Harvard Vietnamese Association, Jakara Movement, Japanese Americans Citizens League, Lambda Phi Epsilon at North Carolina State University, MinKwon Center for Community Action, Muslim Student Association West (MSA West), National Asian Pacific American Families Against Substance Abuse (NAPAFASA), National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, National Council of Asian Pacific Americans (NCAPA), National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance (NQAPIA), National Tongan American Society (NTAS), New Mexico Asian Family Center, North Carolina Asian Americans Together, North Carolina State University Asian Students in Alliance, OCA − Asian Pacific American Advocates, OCA Greater Phoenix, Pacific Islander Health Partnership, Pilipino American Law Society at Berkeley Law, Pilipino Workers Center of Southern California,

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 89 of 97

03/04/2019 03/05/2019

Reappropriate, South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT), South Asian Law Students Association at the University of Michigan Law School, Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC), Task Force on Asian and Pacific American Studies at Harvard College (TAPAS), Third World Liberation Front (TWLF), University of California, Berkeley, Third World Liveration Front '69 Ad Hoc Committee, U.S. Palestinian Community Network (USPCN), University of California, Los Angeles South Asian Law Students Association, University of North Carolina Alpha Kappa Delta Phi, University of North Carolina Asian American Law Students Association, University of North Carolina − Chapel Hill Asian American Students Association, University of North Carolina − Chapel Hill Campus Y Executive Board, Union of North American Vietnamese Student Associations, University of Michigan, Asian Pacific Americna Law Students Association, University of Pennsylvania Asian Pacific Student Coalition, Vietnamese American Bar Association of Southern California, C. Casey Ozaki, C.N. Le, Cheryl D. Ching, Corinne Kodama, David Hoa Khoa Nguyen, Dian Squire, Christin DePouw, Jennifer Ho, stephanie kim, Janelle Wong, Julie J. Park, Kevin Kumashiro, Liliana M. Garces, Liza A. Talusan, Marc Johnston−Guerrero, Min Zhou, Nancy Leong, Oiyan Poon, Sunaina Maira, Matthew Witenstein, Varaxy Yi Borromeo, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Advancing Justice − Los Angeles, Advancing Justice − Asian Law Caucus, Advancing Justice − AAJC, Advancing Justice − Atlanta, Advancing Justice − Chicago. Response to Motion due by 3/25/2019 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed brief, # 2 Text of Proposed Order proposed order granting motion for leave to file amicus)(LEERBERG, MATTHEW) (Entered: 03/04/2019)
179 RESPONSE in Opposition re 158 MOTION for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56 filed by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. filed by ANDREW BRENNAN, CHRISTOPHER JACKSON, RAMONIA JONES, ANGIE MILLS, KEVIN MILLS, JULIA NIEVES, LUIS ACOSTA, LAURA ORNELAS, CECILIA POLANCE, TAMIKA WILLIAMS, STAR WINGATE−BEY. Replies due by 3/18/2019 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Declaration of L. Gaztambide−Arandes, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Declaration of L. Ornelas, # 3 Exhibit 2 − Declaration of L. Acosta, # 4 Exhibit 3 − Declaration of C. Polanco, # 5 Exhibit 4 − Declaration of A. Brennen, # 6 Exhibit 5 − Declaration of S. Scarbrough, # 7 Exhibit 6 − Declaration of H. Watson, # 8 Exhibit 7 − Declaration of D. Gatewood, # 9 Exhibit 8 − Declaration of L. Dyer, # 10 Exhibit 9 − Declaration of K. Ward, # 11 Exhibit 10 − Declaration of J. Mencia, # 12 Exhibit 11 − Declaration of P. Zeigler, # 13 Exhibit 12 − Declaration of G. Parker, # 14 Exhibit 13 − Expert Report of Dr. Cecelski, # 15 Exhibit 14 − Rebuttal Report of R. Kahlenberg by Dr. Chang, # 16 Exhibit 15 − Declaration of V. Newsome Hayes, # 17 Exhibit 16 − Declaration of S. Wingate−Bey, # 18 Exhibit 17 − Declaration of A. Douglass, # 19 Exhibit 18 − Declaration of D. Dwyer, # 20 Exhibit 19 − Declaration of A. Frazier, # 21 Exhibit 20 − Declaration of M. Gomez Flores, # 22 Exhibit 21 − Declaration of S. Searles, # 23 Exhibit 22 − Declaration of R. Mwamba, # 24 Exhibit 23 − Declaration of P. White)(GAZTAMBIDE−ARANDES, LAURA) (Entered: 03/04/2019)
180 CORRECTED BRIEF re 178 MOTION for Leave to File by Amicus Parties Advancing Justice − Chicago, Advancing Justice − Los Angeles, After Bruce, American Citizens for Justice, American Muslim Voice Foundation, Arab American Action Network, Arizona Asian & Pacific Islander American Vote Table, Asian & Latino Solidarity Alliance of Central Virginia, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Asian American Political Alliance (AAPA), University of California, Berkeley, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Asian Community Development Council (ACDC), Asian Counseling and Referral Service, Asian Law Alliance, Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Los Angeles County, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA), AFL−CIO, Asian Pacific Islander Americans for Civic Empowerment (APACE), Asian Pacific Policy and Planning Council, Asian/Pacific Islander Law Students Association at Univerity of California, Los Angeles School of Law, Association for Asian American Yale Alumni (AAAYA), Baltimore Asian Resistance in Solidarity, Berkeley Law Asian Pacific American Law Students Association (APALSA), Varaxy Yi Borromeo, Chinese American Citizens Alliance (C.A.C.A.), Los Angeles Chapter, Chinese American Progressive Action, Chinese Progressive Association, Chinese for Affirmative Action (CAA), Cheryl D. Ching, Claremont South Asian Student Association, Coalition for Asian American Children and Families (CACF), Coalition for a Diverse Harvard, Council on American−Islamic Relations, California, Christin DePouw, Duke Asian American Studies Program, Duke

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 90 of 97

Asian Students Association, East Coast Asian American Student Union, Empowering Pacific Islander Communities, GAPIMNY − Empowering Queer & Trans Asian Pacific Islanders, Liliana M. Garces, Harvard Asian American Women's Association, Harvard Vietnamese Association, Jennifer Ho, Jakara Movement, Japanese Americans Citizens League, Marc Johnston−Guerrero, Corinne Kodama, Kevin Kumashiro, Lambda Phi Epsilon at North Carolina State University, C.N. Le, Nancy Leong, Sunaina Maira, MinKwon Center for Community Action, Muslim Student Association West (MSA West), National Asian Pacific American Families Against Substance Abuse (NAPAFASA), National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, 18MillionRising.org, AAPIs for Civic Empowerment Education Fund, API Equality − Northern California, Advancing Justice − AAJC, Advancing Justice − Asian Law Caucus, Advancing Justice − Atlanta, National Council of Asian Pacific Americans (NCAPA), National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance (NQAPIA), National Tongan American Society (NTAS), New Mexico Asian Family Center, David Hoa Khoa Nguyen, North Carolina Asian Americans Together, North Carolina State University Asian Students in Alliance, OCA − Asian Pacific American Advocates, OCA Greater Phoenix, C. Casey Ozaki, Pacific Islander Health Partnership, Julie J. Park, Pilipino American Law Society at Berkeley Law, Pilipino Workers Center of Southern California, Oiyan Poon, Reappropriate, South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT), South Asian Law Students Association at the University of Michigan Law School, Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC), Dian Squire, Liza A. Talusan, Task Force on Asian and Pacific American Studies at Harvard College (TAPAS), Third World Liberation Front (TWLF), University of California, Berkeley, Third World Liveration Front '69 Ad Hoc Committee, U.S. Palestinian Community Network (USPCN), Union of North American Vietnamese Student Associations, University of California, Los Angeles South Asian Law Students Association, University of Michigan, Asian Pacific Americna Law Students Association, University of North Carolina − Chapel Hill Asian American Students Association, University of North Carolina − Chapel Hill Campus Y Executive Board, University of North Carolina Alpha Kappa Delta Phi, University of North Carolina Asian American Law Students Association, University of Pennsylvania Asian Pacific Student Coalition, Vietnamese American Bar Association of Southern California, Matthew Witenstein, Janelle Wong, Min Zhou, stephanie kim filed by Advancing Justice − Chicago, Advancing Justice − Los Angeles, After Bruce, American Citizens for Justice, American Muslim Voice Foundation, Arab American Action Network, Arizona Asian & Pacific Islander American Vote Table, Asian & Latino Solidarity Alliance of Central Virginia, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Asian American Political Alliance (AAPA), University of California, Berkeley, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Asian Community Development Council (ACDC), Asian Counseling and Referral Service, Asian Law Alliance, Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Los Angeles County, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA), AFL−CIO, Asian Pacific Islander Americans for Civic Empowerment (APACE), Asian Pacific Policy and Planning Council, Asian/Pacific Islander Law Students Association at Univerity of California, Los Angeles School of Law, Association for Asian American Yale Alumni (AAAYA), Baltimore Asian Resistance in Solidarity, Berkeley Law Asian Pacific American Law Students Association (APALSA), Varaxy Yi Borromeo, Chinese American Citizens Alliance (C.A.C.A.), Los Angeles Chapter, Chinese American Progressive Action, Chinese Progressive Association, Chinese for Affirmative Action (CAA), Cheryl D. Ching, Claremont South Asian Student Association, Coalition for Asian American Children and Families (CACF), Coalition for a Diverse Harvard, Council on American−Islamic Relations, California, Christin DePouw, Duke Asian American Studies Program, Duke Asian Students Association, East Coast Asian American Student Union, Empowering Pacific Islander Communities, GAPIMNY − Empowering Queer & Trans Asian Pacific Islanders, Liliana M. Garces, Harvard Asian American Women's Association, Harvard Vietnamese Association, Jennifer Ho, Jakara Movement, Japanese Americans Citizens League, Marc Johnston−Guerrero, Corinne Kodama, Kevin Kumashiro, Lambda Phi Epsilon at North Carolina State University, C.N. Le, Nancy Leong, Sunaina Maira, MinKwon Center for Community Action, Muslim Student Association West (MSA West), National Asian Pacific American Families Against Substance Abuse (NAPAFASA), National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, 18MillionRising.org, AAPIs for Civic Empowerment Education Fund, API Equality − Northern California, Advancing Justice − AAJC, Advancing Justice − Asian Law Caucus, Advancing Justice − Atlanta, National Council of Asian Pacific Americans
Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 91 of 97

03/12/2019
03/27/2019 04/03/2019 04/04/2019 04/04/2019

(NCAPA), National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance (NQAPIA), National Tongan American Society (NTAS), New Mexico Asian Family Center, David Hoa Khoa Nguyen, North Carolina Asian Americans Together, North Carolina State University Asian Students in Alliance, OCA − Asian Pacific American Advocates, OCA Greater Phoenix, C. Casey Ozaki, Pacific Islander Health Partnership, Julie J. Park, Pilipino American Law Society at Berkeley Law, Pilipino Workers Center of Southern California, Oiyan Poon, Reappropriate, South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT), South Asian Law Students Association at the University of Michigan Law School, Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC), Dian Squire, Liza A. Talusan, Task Force on Asian and Pacific American Studies at Harvard College (TAPAS), Third World Liberation Front (TWLF), University of California, Berkeley, Third World Liveration Front '69 Ad Hoc Committee, U.S. Palestinian Community Network (USPCN), Union of North American Vietnamese Student Associations, University of California, Los Angeles South Asian Law Students Association, University of Michigan, Asian Pacific Americna Law Students Association, University of North Carolina − Chapel Hill Asian American Students Association, University of North Carolina − Chapel Hill Campus Y Executive Board, University of North Carolina Alpha Kappa Delta Phi, University of North Carolina Asian American Law Students Association, University of Pennsylvania Asian Pacific Student Coalition, Vietnamese American Bar Association of Southern California, Matthew Witenstein, Janelle Wong, Min Zhou, stephanie kim. (LEERBERG, MATTHEW) (Entered: 03/05/2019)
181 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment by CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE. Response to Motion due by 4/2/2019 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amicus Curiae Brief (Conditionally Filed), # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(BUDASOFF, NATALIO) (Entered: 03/12/2019)
Motion Submitted: 178 MOTION for Leave to File to JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS. (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 03/27/2019)
Motion Submitted: 181 MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment to JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS. (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 04/03/2019)
182 ORDER signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 4/4/2019. The motion for leave to file a brief as amici curiae in support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 181 ) is DENIED. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 04/04/2019)
183 REPLY, filed by Defendants W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ROGER AIKEN, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY, to Response to 152 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ROGER AIKEN, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 92 of 97

04/04/2019 04/10/2019 04/10/2019 05/07/2019
05/07/2019
05/08/2019 05/09/2019 05/09/2019 05/13/2019 05/21/2019 09/30/2019
11/01/2019

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (FITZGERALD, PATRICK) (Entered: 04/04/2019)
184 REPLY, filed by Plaintiff STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC., to Response to 158 MOTION for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56 filed by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. (RULEY, DANIEL) (Entered: 04/04/2019)
185 ORDER signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 4/10/2019. The motion for leave to file a brief as amici curiae in response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 178 ) is DENIED. (Daniel, J) Modified 185 on 4/10/2019 to replace with correct image. (Daniel, J). (Entered: 04/10/2019)
Motions Submitted: 152 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 158 MOTION for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56, 170 MOTION to Seal to JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS. (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 04/10/2019)
186 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney LAURA J. GAZTAMBIDE−ARANDES by on behalf of ANDREW BRENNAN, CHRISTOPHER JACKSON, RAMONIA JONES, ANGIE MILLS, KEVIN MILLS, JULIA NIEVES, LUIS ACOSTA, LAURA ORNELAS, CECILIA POLANCE, TAMIKA WILLIAMS, STAR WINGATE−BEY. Responses due by 5/28/2019 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(GAZTAMBIDE−ARANDES, LAURA) (Entered: 05/07/2019)
187 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney BRENDA L. SHUM by on behalf of ANDREW BRENNAN, CHRISTOPHER JACKSON, RAMONIA JONES, ANGIE MILLS, KEVIN MILLS, JULIA NIEVES, LUIS ACOSTA, LAURA ORNELAS, CECILIA POLANCE, TAMIKA WILLIAMS, STAR WINGATE−BEY. Responses due by 5/28/2019 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(SHUM, BRENDA) (Entered: 05/07/2019)
Motions Referred: RE: 186 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney LAURA J. GAZTAMBIDE−ARANDES , 187 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney BRENDA L. SHUM , to MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER. (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 05/08/2019)
TEXT ORDER granting 186 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. For good cause shown, Attorney Laura Gaztambide−Arandes is withdrawn as counsel for Defendants−Intervenors and is discharged from any further duties or responsibilities herein. Issued by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 5/9/2019.(Lee, Pedra) (Entered: 05/09/2019)
TEXT ORDER granting 187 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. For good cause shown, Attorney Brenda Shum is withdrawn as counsel for Defendants−Intervenors and is discharged from any further duties or responsibilities herein. Issued by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 5/9/2019.(Lee, Pedra) (Entered: 05/09/2019)
188 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AND SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL on behalf of Plaintiff STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. MICHAEL H. PARK is substituted as counsel for Plaintiff. Attorney MICHAEL H. PARK terminated. (PARK, MICHAEL) (Entered: 05/13/2019)
189 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney EDWARD G. CASPAR on behalf of Intervenor Defendant LUIS ACOSTA (CASPAR, EDWARD) (Entered: 05/21/2019)
190 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 9/30/2019. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 152 ) is DENIED. SFFA's Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56 (ECF No. 158 ) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion to File Under Seal Pursuant to Local Rule 5.4(c) is GRANTED, and Exhibits 16, 31 and 33 (ECF Nos. 171 , 171 −1, 171 −2), are and shall be permanently sealed. A redacted version of these materials, (ECF Nos. 163 −16, 163 −31, 163 −33, 170 −1, 170 −2, 170 −3), shall remain accessible to the public. (Powell, Gloria) (Entered: 09/30/2019)
191 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 93 of 97

11/04/2019 11/05/2019
12/23/2019 01/02/2020 01/02/2020
01/02/2020 01/02/2020
01/15/2020

LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ROGER AIKEN, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (FITZGERALD, PATRICK) (Entered: 11/01/2019)
CASE REFERRED RE: 191 Joint Status Report, to JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS. (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 11/04/2019)
192 NOTICE of Hearing: Bench Trial special set for 6/8/2020 at 09:30 AM in Winston−Salem Courtroom #1 before JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS. A settlement/pretrial conference in the above−referenced case will be set for a date approximately one month prior to the trial date. Counsel are directed to bring a client representative to the settlement/pretrial conference.The parties shall comply in all respects with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) regarding final pretrial disclosures, including the time requirements set out therein. In addition, no later than May 18, 2020, unless directed to the contrary, each party shall file a trial brief, along with proposed instructions on the issues.(Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 11/05/2019)
193 MOTION to Continue Trial by STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(MCCARTHY, THOMAS) (Entered: 12/23/2019)
Motion Submitted: 193 MOTION to Continue Trial to JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS. (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 01/02/2020)
194 ORDER signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 1/2/2020. The motion to continue (ECF No. 193 ) is GRANTED and the trial in this matter is rescheduled from June 8, 2020 to May 11, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. in Winston−Salem, Courtroom No. 1. A settlement/pretrial conference in this case will be set for a date approximately one month prior to the trial date. Counsel are directed to bring a client representative to the settlement/pretrial conference. The parties shall comply in all respects with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) regarding final pretrial disclosures, including the time requirements set out therein. In addition, no later than April 20, 2020, each party shall file any motions in limine and a trial brief, along with proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 01/02/2020)
Set/Reset/Hearings: Bench Trial reset from 6/8/2020 to 5/11/2020 at 09:30 AM in Winston−Salem Courtroom #1 before JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS. (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 01/02/2020)
195 NOTICE of Hearing: Pretrial/Settlement Conference set for 4/8/2020 at 09:30 AM in Durham Courtroom #1 before MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER. Each party is directed to prepare for the Court a document not exceeding three typewritten pages which sets out: (1) the perceived strength of that party's claims and/or defenses and (2) the perceived shortcomings of the opposing party's claims and/or defenses. That document shall be served on the opposing party and emailed to jwebster@ncmd.uscourts.gov for Judge Webster's review no later than Tuesday, March 31, 2020.(Blay, Debbie). (Entered: 01/02/2020)
196 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AND SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL on behalf of Defendants W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JEFFERSON W. BROWN, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ROGER AIKEN, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F.

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 94 of 97

01/17/2020 02/28/2020
03/13/2020
03/16/2020 03/18/2020 03/23/2020

TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. TAMIKA HENDERSON is substituted as counsel for Defendants. Attorney NORA F. SULLIVAN terminated. (HENDERSON, TAMIKA) (Entered: 01/15/2020)
197 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney DAVID G. HINOJOSA on behalf of Intervenor Defendants ANDREW BRENNAN, LUIS ACOSTA, LAURA ORNELAS, CECILIA POLANCE, STAR WINGATE−BEY (HINOJOSA, DAVID) (Entered: 01/17/2020)
198 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL AND SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL on behalf of Amicus Parties CAPITOL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC., CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., CUMMINS INC., DUKE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., EBAY INC., ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, ENTERGY CORPORATION, ERNST & YOUNG, GENERAL MOTORS LLC, GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC, HP INC., IBM CORPORATION, IKEA RETAIL US LLC, KPMG LLP, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR STOCK CAR AUTO RACING, INC., ARCELORMITTAL USA LLC, ARIEL INVESTMENTS LLC, PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC., PEPSICO, INC., RED HAT, INC., REPLACEMENTS, LTD., RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE, TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC., THE HERSHEY COMPANY, THE REDWOODS GROUP, INC., UNITED AIRLINES, INC., YUM! BRANDS, INC.. JAMES M. WEISS is substituted as counsel for Amicus Parties. Attorney STEPHEN DANIEL FELDMAN terminated. (WEISS, JAMES) (Entered: 02/28/2020)
199 Joint MOTION to Dispense with the Pre−Trial Settlement Conference by W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ROGER AIKEN, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (FITZGERALD, PATRICK) (Entered: 03/13/2020)
Motion Submitted: 199 Joint MOTION to Dispense with the Pre−Trial Settlement Conference to JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS. (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 03/16/2020)
200 ORDER signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 3/18/2020. The Joint Motion (ECF No. 199 ) is GRANTED, and the pre−trial settlement conference scheduled for April 8, 2020 before Magistrate Judge Webster is CANCELLED with his knowledge and agreement. Further, any corresponding requisite submission with respect to the pre−trial settlement conference only, is no longer required. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 03/18/2020)
201 Joint MOTION Regarding Certain Pre−Trial Issues and Request to Adjust Certain Briefing Deadlines by W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ROGER AIKEN, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 95 of 97

03/24/2020 04/01/2020
04/01/2020 04/03/2020
04/08/2020 04/10/2020 04/14/2020 04/17/2020

OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (FITZGERALD, PATRICK) (Entered: 03/23/2020)
Motion Submitted: 201 Joint MOTION Regarding Certain Pre−Trial Issues and Request to Adjust Certain Briefing Deadlines to JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS. (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 03/24/2020)
202 ORDER signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 04/01/2020, that the parties motion, (ECF No. 201 ), is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that the Court's Order dated January 2, 2020, (ECF No. 194 ), shall be modified to no longer require trial briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on April 20, 2020; FURTHER that the parties shall file trial briefs to include proposed finding of facts and conclusions of law following the trial of this matter and no later than 30 days following the receipt of the official trial transcripts of the trial with opposition briefs due no later than 21 days thereafter. FURTHER that the parties shall file on or before April 20, 2020 a joint status report, considering their efforts to streamline the trial as set forth in their motion, addressing the following: (1) their updated estimate of duration of trial; (2) each parties' list of witnesses to include the city and state of residence of each; (3) each parties' litigation team to be present for trial to include the name of each attorney or staff member and the city and state residence of each; (4) any other person (s) that either party wishes to have attend the trial with said person's city and state of residence; and (5) any other information that the parties deem pertinent to the Court in its determination of the feasibility of conducting a trial of this matter in May 2020. FURTHER that the parties shall participate in a teleconference with the Court that will be scheduled for a mutually convenient date following the filing of the joint status report to address, among other things, the parties' request for guidance on effectuating a stipulated judgment resolving Count III and the feasibility of conducting a trial in this matter in May 2020. (Taylor, Abby) (Entered: 04/01/2020)
Set Deadline: Joint Status Report due by 4/20/2020. (Taylor, Abby) (Entered: 04/01/2020)
203 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ROGER AIKEN, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (FITZGERALD, PATRICK) (Entered: 04/03/2020)
204 NOTICE of Hearing: Telephone Conference set for 4/14/2020 at 11:00 AM before JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS. An email will be sent with call−in instructions.(Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 04/08/2020)
205 FINAL PRETRIAL DISCLOSURES by ANDREW BRENNAN, LUIS ACOSTA, LAURA ORNELAS, CECILIA POLANCE, STAR WINGATE−BEY.(TORRES, GENEVIEVE) (Entered: 04/10/2020)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS: Telephone Conference held on 4/14/2020. The following attorneys participated: For SFFA: Thomas McCarthy and Patrick Strawbridge; For UNC−Defendants: Patrick Fitzgerald, Stephanie Brennan, and Lara Flath; For Student−Intervenors: Jack Holtzman, David Hinojosa, and Genevieve Bonadies Torres. Matters discussed regarding the Joint Status Report. Written Order forthcoming.(Court Reporter Lori Russell.) (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 04/14/2020)
206 PRE−TRIAL ORDER signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 4/17/2020. The previous Order of the Court setting trial in this matter for May 11, 2020 (ECF No. 194 ) is modified and trial is rescheduled to November 9, 2020. A Trial Notice will be filed

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 96 of 97

04/17/2020 04/24/2020

simultaneously with this Order. FURTHER that SFFA's request for a bench trial on the summary judgment record (ECF No. 203 at 46) which this Court has considered as a motion is DENIED. FURTHER that the parties shall expeditiously file the joint motion for partial judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which was agreed upon by the parties for the purpose of preserving SFFA's right to appellate review on Count Three of the Complaint. (Daniel, J) (Entered: 04/17/2020)
207 NOTICE of Hearing: Bench Trial set for 11/9/2020 at 09:30 AM in Winston−Salem Courtroom #1 before JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS. (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 04/17/2020)
208 Transcript of Proceedings held on 04/14/2020, re: Telephone Conference, before Judge Loretta C. Biggs. Court Reporter Lori Russell, Telephone number 336−734−2547. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have 5 business days to file a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction and 21 calendar days to file a Redaction Request. If no notice is filed, this transcript will be made electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the court reporter before the 90 day deadline. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

05/08/2020 05/11/2020

Redaction Request due 5/18/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/29/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/27/2020. (Russell, Lori) (Entered: 04/24/2020)
209 Consent MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings (Partial) by W. LOUIS BISSETTE, JR, JAMES W. DEAN, JR, STEPHEN M. FARMER, JOHN C. FENNEBRESQUE, CAROL L. FOLT, H. FRANK FRAINGER, HANNAH D. GAGE, ANN B. GOODNIGHT, PETER D. HANS, THOMAS J. HARRELSON, HENRY W. HINTON, JAMES L. HOLMES, JR, RODNEY E. HOOD, W. MARTY KOTIS, III, G. LEROY LAIL, SCOTT LAMPE, STEVEN B. LONG, JOAN G. MACNEILL, HARI H. MATH, MARY ANN MAXWELL, W. EDWIN MCMAHAN, W.G. CHAMPION MITCHELL, ROGER AIKEN, ANNA SPANGLER NELSON, ALEX PARKER, R. DOYLE PARRISH, JOAN TEMPLETON PERRY, THERENCE O. PICKETT, DAVID M. POWERS, ROBERT S. RIPPY, THOMAS W. ROSS, HARRY LEO SMITH, JR, J. CRAIG SOUZA, GEORGE A. SYWASSINK, RICHARD F. TAYLOR, RAIFORD TRASK, III, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, PHILLIP D. WALKER, LAURA I. WILEY. (FITZGERALD, PATRICK) (Entered: 05/08/2020)
Motion Submitted: 209 Consent MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings (Partial) to JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS. (Blay, Debbie) (Entered: 05/11/2020)

Case: 1:14-cv-954 document<docnum> filed <datefiled> 97 of 97