Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

(b)(1)(A),MAG,JURY,LC1

US District Court Electronic Case Filing System District of Utah (Central)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:17-cv-00677-HCN-DBP

Gordon et al v. Jordan School District et al Assigned to: Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr Referred to: Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead Cause: 20:1681 Title IX Educational Amendments 1992 - Sex Discrimination

Date Filed: 06/23/2017 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 448 Civil Rights: Education Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Brent Gordon as general guardian of S.G.

represented by Mark L. Smith SMITH WASHBURN LLP 500 S GRAND AVE STE 1450 LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 (213)418-2390 Email: msmith@smithwashburn.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Trinity S. Jordan SMITH WASHBURN LLP 8 E BROADWAY STE 320 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 (801)584-1800 Email: tjordan@smithwashburn.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tyler Anne Dever SMITH WASHBURN LLP 8 E BROADWAY STE 320 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 801-584-1800 Fax: 801-584-1820 Email: tdever@smithwashburn.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Jason Dixon as general guardian of L.D.

Brent Gordon 477 SHOUP AVE STE 203 IDAHO FALLS, ID 83402 (208) 552-0467 Email: brent@brentgordonlaw.com TERMINATED: 09/08/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
D. Loren Washburn SMITH WASHBURN LLP 8 E BROADWAY STE 320 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 (801)584-1800 Email: lwashburn@smithwashburn.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob L. Fonnesbeck SMITH WASHBURN LLP 8 E BROADWAY STE 320 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 (801) 584-1800 Email: jfonnesbeck@smithwashburn.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark L. Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Trinity S. Jordan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tyler Anne Dever (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brent Gordon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Lisa Simmons as general guardian of B.S.
Plaintiff Barbara Calchera as general guardian of M.C.

D. Loren Washburn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob L. Fonnesbeck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark L. Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Trinity S. Jordan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tyler Anne Dever (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brent Gordon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
D. Loren Washburn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob L. Fonnesbeck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark L. Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Trinity S. Jordan

Plaintiff
Bret Robison as general guardian of D.R.

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tyler Anne Dever (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brent Gordon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
D. Loren Washburn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob L. Fonnesbeck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark L. Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Trinity S. Jordan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tyler Anne Dever (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brent Gordon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
D. Loren Washburn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Manuel Nogales as general guardian of I.N.
Plaintiff I. C. a minor

Jacob L. Fonnesbeck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jacob L. Fonnesbeck (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark L. Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Trinity S. Jordan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tyler Anne Dever (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brent Gordon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
D. Loren Washburn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark L. Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Trinity S. Jordan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Jordan School District

Tyler Anne Dever (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brent Gordon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/08/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
D. Loren Washburn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob L. Fonnesbeck (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Darin B. Goff UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE (160-6-140856) LITIGATION UNIT 160 E 300 S 6TH FL PO BOX 140856 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 841140856 (801)366-0100 Email: dgoff@agutah.gov TERMINATED: 07/06/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Teter TETER & VU LLC 57 W 200 S STE 250 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101 801-810-0365 Email: michael@tetervu.com TERMINATED: 10/08/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Granite School District

Philip S. Lott UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE (160-6-140856) LITIGATION UNIT 160 E 300 S 6TH FL PO BOX 140856 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 841140856 (801)366-0100 Email: phillott@agutah.gov TERMINATED: 11/07/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel G. Terry UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE (160-6TH FL) 160 E 300 S 6TH FL SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 (801)366-0100 Email: rachelterry@agutah.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
S. Shane Stroud UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE (160-6-140856) LITIGATION UNIT 160 E 300 S 6TH FL PO BOX 140856 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 841140856 (801)366-0100 Email: sstroud@agutah.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Darin B. Goff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Teter (See above for address)

Defendant Canyons School District

TERMINATED: 10/08/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip S. Lott (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel G. Terry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
S. Shane Stroud (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Darin B. Goff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Teter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip S. Lott (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel G. Terry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
S. Shane Stroud (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Utah High School Activities Association
Defendant Patrice Johnson TERMINATED: 10/29/2019

represented by D. Craig Parry PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS 101 S 200 E STE 700 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 (801) 532-7840 Email: cparry@parrbrown.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark O. Van Wagoner SAVAGE YEATES & WALDRON PC 2455 PARLEYS WY STE 200 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84109 (801)631-1872 Email: movw@comcast.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael S. Lehr PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS 101 S 200 E STE 700 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 (801)532-7840 Email: mlehr@parrbrown.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel G. Terry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Darin B. Goff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Teter (See above for address)

Defendant Martin Bates
Defendant

TERMINATED: 10/08/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip S. Lott (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel G. Terry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Darin B. Goff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Teter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip S. Lott (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel G. Terry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
S. Shane Stroud (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Briscoe TERMINATED: 08/04/2020
Defendant Anthony Godfrey Superintendent of Jordan School District
Defendant Rick L. Robins

represented by Darin B. Goff (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/06/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Teter (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/08/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Philip S. Lott (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rachel G. Terry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
S. Shane Stroud (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Rachel G. Terry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
S. Shane Stroud (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Rachel G. Terry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
S. Shane Stroud

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/23/2017
06/23/2017 07/06/2017 07/06/2017 08/07/2017 08/07/2017 08/10/2017

# Docket Text
1 Case has been indexed and assigned to Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells. Plaintiffs Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons are directed to E-File the Complaint and cover sheet (found under Complaints and Other Initiating Documents) and pay the filing fee of $ 400.00 by the end of the business day. NOTE: The court will not have jurisdiction until the opening document is electronically filed and the filing fee paid in the CM/ECF system. Civil Summons may be issued electronically. Prepare the summons using the courts PDF version and email it to utdecf_clerk@utd.uscourts.gov for issuance. (tlh) (Entered: 06/23/2017)
2 COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 1088-2783732) filed by Manuel Nogales, Lisa Simmons, Bret Robison, Brent Gordon, Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet to Complaint) Assigned to Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells (Washburn, D.) (Entered: 06/23/2017)
3 NOTICE of Appearance by Rachel G. Terry on behalf of Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District (Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 07/06/2017)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by Darin B. Goff on behalf of Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District (Goff, Darin) (Entered: 07/06/2017)
5 NOTICE OF ADR, e-mailed or mailed to Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District, Plaintiffs Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (las) (Entered: 08/07/2017)
6 NOTICE FROM THE COURT re: Initial Scheduling The court's IPT Clerk will now set the case for the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Conference (las) (Entered: 08/07/2017)
7 NOTICE OF INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: (Notice generated by IPT Clerk)

08/18/2017 08/18/2017 08/18/2017 08/30/2017 09/13/2017
09/28/2017

The Attorneys Planning Meeting Report and Proposed Scheduling Order forms, available on the court web site at http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/usdc-forms, should be prepared 21 days before the Initial Pretrial Conference hearing date.
NOTICE TO COUNSEL, The Court may enter a scheduling order and vacate the hearing if counsel (a) file a stipulated Attorneys Planning Meeting Report; and (b) e-mail a Proposed Scheduling Order to ipt@utd.uscourts.gov 21 days before the scheduled hearing. See instructions at http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/attorney-planning-meeting-and-report
If counsel or the parties would like to participate by phone they must contact the IPT Clerk at least two days in advance at ipt@utd.uscourts.gov to make arrangements.
Initial Pretrial Conference set for 10/4/2017 at 11:30 AM in Rm 7.400 before Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse. (jds) (Entered: 08/10/2017)
8 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Brent Gordon as to Utah High School Activities Association Waiver sent on 8/17/2017, answer due 10/16/2017. (Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 08/18/2017)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by Brent Gordon on behalf of Brent Gordon (Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 08/18/2017)
10 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed filed by Brent Gordon as to All Defendants. (Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 08/18/2017)
11 NOTICE of Unavailability by Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District (Goff, Darin) (Entered: 08/30/2017)
12 Stipulated MOTION to Continue Pretrial Conference and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Stipulated Motion to Continue Pretrial Conference) Attorney Jacob L. Fonnesbeck added to party Manuel Nogales(pty:pla)(Fonnesbeck, Jacob) (Entered: 09/13/2017)
13 ORDER granting 12 Stipulated MOTION to Continue Pretrial Conference. Initial Pretrial Conference reset for 11/8/2017 at 11:30 AM in Rm 7.400 before Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells on 9/28/2017. (jds) (Entered: 09/28/2017)

10/13/2017
10/13/2017 10/13/2017 10/13/2017 10/18/2017 10/20/2017
10/24/2017 10/25/2017 10/25/2017

14 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Brent Gordon, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F)(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
15 Canyons School District and James Briscoe's ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand filed by James Briscoe, Canyons School District.(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
16 Granite School District and Martin Bates' ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand filed by Martin Bates, Granite School District.(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
17 Jordan School District and Patrice Johnson's ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand filed by Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District.(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
18 REPORT OF ATTORNEY PLANNING MEETING. (Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 10/18/2017)
19 NOTICE - This case is assigned to a magistrate judge. To consent or request reassignment, use the form on this link or use the included form for non-efilers and send it to consents@utd.uscourts.gov within 15 days or mail to the court with Attention: Consent Clerk on the envelope. Notice e-mailed or mailed to Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District, Utah High School Activities Association, Plaintiffs Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. Form due by 11/6/2017. (las) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
20 RECEIVED Consent/Reassignment Form from Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District. (las) (Entered: 10/24/2017)
21 RECEIVED Consent/Reassignment Form from Plaintiffs Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (las) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
22 All Consent/Reassignment Forms have now been received. After review of all forms, Case Reassigned to District Judge per request of one or more party(s). Case randomly assigned to Judge Clark Waddoups. Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells no longer assigned to the case. (las) (Entered: 10/25/2017)

10/25/2017 10/27/2017 10/30/2017 11/01/2017 11/06/2017
11/07/2017
11/14/2017 11/15/2017 11/15/2017

23 Defendant Utah High School Athletic Association's ANSWER to Complaint and Proposed Class Action filed by Utah High School Activities Association. Attorney Mark O. Van Wagoner added to party Utah High School Activities Association(pty:dft)(Van Wagoner, Mark) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
24 NOTICE of Appearance by D. Craig Parry on behalf of Utah High School Activities Association (Parry, D.) (Entered: 10/27/2017)
25 ORDER OF RECUSAL. Case needs to be re-assigned due to nonwaivable conflict. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on October 30, 2017. (yd) (Entered: 10/30/2017)
26 Case Reassigned per 25 Order of Recusal. Case Assigned to Judge Robert J. Shelby. Judge Clark Waddoups no longer assigned to the case. (jwt) (Entered: 11/01/2017)
27 SCHEDULING ORDER: Initial Pretrial Conference vacated. Amended Pleadings due by 1/16/2018. Joinder of Parties due by 1/16/2018. Discovery due by 7/16/2018. Motions due by 7/16/2018. Deadline for filing a request for a scheduling conference with the district judge for the purpose of setting a trial date if no dispositive motions are filed 7/23/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse on 11/6/2017. (jds) (Entered: 11/06/2017)
28 Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 14 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 11/07/2017)
29 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead under 28:636 (b)(1)(A), Magistrate to hear and determine all nondispositive pretrial matters. No attached document. Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead. Signed by Judge Robert J. Shelby on 11/14/2017. (mjm) (Entered: 11/14/2017)
30 Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time Stipulated Motion for Time to File Class Certification and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiff Brent Gordon. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
31 ORDER granting 28 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 14 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.

11/16/2017 11/27/2017 12/07/2017 12/13/2017
12/14/2017 12/23/2017
12/23/2017 12/26/2017

Responses due by 12/13/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 11/15/2017. (jds) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
32 ORDER granting 30 Motion for Extension of Time to file Motion for Class Certification. The motion is due on or before November 27, 2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 11/16/2017. (jds) (Entered: 11/16/2017)
33 MOTION to Certify Class and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiff Brent Gordon. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Brent Gordon)(Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 11/27/2017)
34 NOTICE of Change of Address by Jacob L. Fonnesbeck for SMITH CORRELL, LLP (Fonnesbeck, Jacob) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
35 Joint MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 14 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Jordan School District, Utah High School Activities Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Declaration of Rob Cuff in Support of Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Partial Motion for Summary Judgment)(Parry, D.) (Entered: 12/13/2017)
36 Joint MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 33 MOTION to Certify Class and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District, Utah High School Activities Association. (Parry, D.) (Entered: 12/14/2017)
37 REPLY to Response to Motion re 14 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. Attorney Brent Gordon added to party Barbara Calchera(pty:pla), Attorney Brent Gordon added to party Jason Dixon(pty:pla), Attorney Brent Gordon added to party Manuel Nogales(pty:pla), Attorney Brent Gordon added to party Bret Robison (pty:pla), Attorney Brent Gordon added to party Lisa Simmons (pty:pla)(Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 12/23/2017)
38 REQUEST to Submit for Decision re 14 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support (Oral Argument Requested) filed by Plaintiffs Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 12/23/2017)
39 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: 14 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 33 MOTION to Certify Class : (Notice generated

12/28/2017 01/15/2018 01/31/2018 02/08/2018 02/13/2018
02/21/2018 02/21/2018

by Mary Jane McNamee) Motion Hearing set for 2/13/2018 at 2:00 PM in Rm 7.300 before Judge Robert J. Shelby. (mjm) (Entered: 12/26/2017)
40 REPLY to Response to Motion re 33 MOTION to Certify Class and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 12/28/2017)
41 MOTION to Amend/Correct and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Amended Complaint) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 01/15/2018)
42 DOCKET TEXT ORDER granting Plaintiff's unopposed Motion to Amend Complaint to add an additional paragraph to the existing allegations set forth in paragraph 19 of the original Complaint 41 . Plaintiff to file a copy of the Amended Complaint on the court docket. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 1/31/2018. (amn) (Entered: 01/31/2018)
43 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants with Jury Demand. New Plaintiffs: I.C.. filed by Manuel Nogales, Lisa Simmons, Bret Robison, Brent Gordon, Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon. (Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 02/08/2018)
44 Minute Order. Motion Hearing held on 2/13/2018. Proceedings held before Judge Robert J. Shelby: The court hears oral argument and rules as follows; DENYING AS MOOT docket entry 33 Motion to Certify Class filed by Brent Gordon and GRANTING docket entry 14 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Barbara Calchera, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Lisa Simmons, Jason Dixon, Bret Robison. Plaintiff has 30 days to file a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. If a Motion is filed, Defendants may respond in due course. Written Order to follow oral order: No. Attorney for Plaintiff: D. Loren Washburn, Brent Gordon, Attorney for Defendant Mark Van Wavoner, Rachel Terry, D. Craig Parry, Darin B. GOff. Court Reporter: Kelly Hicken.(mjm) (Entered: 02/15/2018)
45 Defendant Utah High School Activities Association's ANSWER to 43 Amended Complaint filed by Utah High School Activities Association.(Parry, D.) (Entered: 02/21/2018)
46 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** - Transcript will not be released see 53 Redaction Request, 54 Redacted Transcript NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on

02/22/2018 02/22/2018 02/26/2018 02/26/2018

2/13/18 before Judge Robert J. Shelby. Court Reporter/Transcriber Kelly Brown Hicken, RPR, RMR, Telephone number (801) 521-7238.
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 business days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the parties intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. To redact additional information a Motion to Redact must be filed. The policy and forms are located on the court's website at www.utd.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available on the date set forth below.
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/14/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/26/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/22/2018. (dla) Modified added non-release info on 3/12/2018 (rks). Modified on 3/12/2018 (jwt). (Entered: 02/21/2018)
48 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 43 Amended Complaint (NON-OPPOSED MOTION) filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Goff, Darin) (Entered: 02/22/2018)
49 ORDER granting 48 Non-Opposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to 43 Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. District Defendants shall file their answer on or before 3/26/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 2/22/18. (dla) (Entered: 02/22/2018)
50 Stipulated MOTION for Scheduling Order and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 02/26/2018)
51 STIPULATED AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Amended Pleadings due by 7/15/2018. Joinder of Parties due by 7/15/2018. Discovery due by 1/16/2019. Motions due by 1/16/2019. (See order for other deadlines.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 2/26/2018. (jwt) (Entered: 02/26/2018)

02/27/2018 02/27/2018 03/12/2018 03/14/2018 03/28/2018
03/29/2018 04/06/2018
04/06/2018 04/11/2018

52 NOTICE of Intent to Request Redaction by Brent Gordon re 46 Transcript,,,,. (Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 02/27/2018)
53 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** Transcript Redaction Request re 46 Transcript,,,, by attorney Brent Gordon. (Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 02/27/2018)
54 TRANSCRIPT REDACTION of 46 Transcript. (jwt) Modified by removing restricted text on 5/24/2018 (rgj). (Entered: 03/12/2018)
56 MOTION to Amend/Correct and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Second Amended Complaint) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 03/14/2018)
57 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Terry, Rachel) Modified by correcting event type on 3/29/2018 (dla). (Entered: 03/28/2018)
58 ORDER granting 57 Non-Opposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to 56 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Defendants have up to and including 4/6/2018, to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 3/29/18. (dla) (Entered: 03/29/2018)
59 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 56 MOTION to Amend/Correct and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendant Utah High School Activities Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Emails from Plaintiffs' counsel to Defendants, # 2 Exhibit B - Excerpts of Utah High School Activities Association Handbook)(Parry, D.) (Entered: 04/06/2018)
60 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 56 MOTION to Amend/Correct and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Hearing Transcript)(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 04/06/2018)
61 Motions No Longer Referred: 56 MOTION to Amend/Correct and Memorandum in Support (mjm) (Entered: 04/11/2018)

04/13/2018 04/18/2018
04/20/2018 05/14/2018 05/21/2018
05/22/2018 05/23/2018 05/25/2018 06/03/2018

62 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: 56 MOTION to Amend/Correct : (Notice generated by Mary Jane McNamee) Motion Hearing set for 7/12/2018 at 01:30 PM in Rm 7.300 before Judge Robert J. Shelby. (mjm) (Entered: 04/13/2018)
63 AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: 56 MOTION to Amend/Correct : (Notice generated by Mary Jane McNamee) Motion Hearing RESET for 7/17/2018 at 01:30 PM in Rm 7.300 before Judge Robert J. Shelby. PLEASE NOTE: Hearing date moved to 7/17/2018 at 1:30 p.m. (mjm) (Entered: 04/18/2018)
64 REPLY to Response to Motion re 56 MOTION to Amend/Correct and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
65 NOTICE of Unavailability by Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District (Goff, Darin) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
66 MOTION for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 54(b) re 44 Order on Motion to Certify Class, Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District. Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Terry, Rachel) Modified on 6/15/2018: corrected text (alt) (Entered: 05/21/2018)
67 MOTION to Certify Class and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 05/22/2018)
68 Motions No Longer Referred: 66 Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Rule 54(b)will be handled by the District Court. (amn) (Entered: 05/23/2018)
Transcript deadlines terminated. (rgj) (Entered: 05/25/2018)
69 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 66 MOTION for RECONSIDERATION Pursuant to Rule 54(b) re 44 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,, Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,,,, Motion Hearing,,, and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 06/03/2018)

06/04/2018 06/05/2018 06/05/2018 06/06/2018 06/06/2018 06/06/2018
06/07/2018 06/13/2018 06/14/2018

70 MOTION to Stay re 67 MOTION to Certify Class and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendant Utah High School Activities Association. Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Parry, D.) (Entered: 06/04/2018)
71 Motions No Longer Referred: 70 Defendant's Utah High School Activities Association's MOTION to Stay will be addressed by the District Court. (Entered: 06/05/2018)
72 MOTION to Stay re 67 MOTION to Certify Class and Memorandum in Support and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District. Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 06/05/2018)
73 Motions No Longer Referred: 72 Defendants' Bates, Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Johnson and Jordan School District's MOTION to Stay will be addressed by the District Court. (amn) (Entered: 06/06/2018)
74 ORDER granting 56 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file the Proposed Second Amended Complaint on the docket within 3 days. Signed by Judge Robert J. Shelby on 6/6/2018. (jds) (Entered: 06/06/2018)
75 AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: 66 DISTRICT DEFENDANTS RULE 54(b) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, 67 MOTION to Certify Class: (Notice generated by Mary Jane McNamee) Motion Hearing set for 7/17/2018 at 01:30 PM in Rm 7.300 before Judge Robert J. Shelby. Hearing will be held on 7/17/2018 at 1:30 re: docket entries 66 DISTRICT DEFENDANTS RULE 54(b) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, 67 MOTION to Certify Class (mjm) (Entered: 06/06/2018)
76 AMENDED COMPLAINT SECOND against All Defendants. filed by Manuel Nogales, Lisa Simmons, Bret Robison, Brent Gordon, I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon. (Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 06/07/2018)
77 MOTION for Extension of Time re: Briefing Deadlines filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
78 MOTION for Leave to File Overlength Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class filed by Defendant Utah High School Activities Association. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order

06/14/2018 06/14/2018 06/14/2018 06/14/2018 06/15/2018
06/15/2018 06/15/2018 06/21/2018

Granting Leave to File Overlength Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead. Attorney Michael S. Lehr added to party Utah High School Activities Association(pty:dft)(Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 06/14/2018)
79 Motions No Longer Referred: 77 MOTION for Extension of Time re: Briefing Deadlines will be addressed by the District Court. (amn) (Entered: 06/14/2018)
80 DOCKET TEXT ORDER granting 78 Motion for Leave to File OverLength Memorandum. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on June 14, 2018. No attached document. (amn) (Entered: 06/14/2018)
81 ORDER denying 77 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Robert J. Shelby on 6/14/18 (alt) (Entered: 06/14/2018)
82 MOTION for Extension of Time re: Briefing Schedules filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 06/14/2018)
83 ORDER granting 82 District Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time: The briefing schedule is amended as follows: I) District Defendants have up to and including 6/22/2018, to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class. II) District Defendants have up to and including 6/29/2018, to file their reply memorandum in support of their Motion for Reconsideration. III) District Defendants have up to and including July 11, 2018, to file their answers to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Robert J. Shelby on 6/15/18. (dla) (Entered: 06/15/2018)
Reset Deadlines: District Defendants' Answers to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint 7/11/2018. District Defendants' response 6/22/2018. District Defendants' reply 6/29/18. (dla) (Entered: 06/15/2018)
84 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 67 MOTION to Certify Class and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendant Utah High School Activities Association. (Lehr, Michael) Modified by correcting docket entry association per attorney office request on 6/15/2018 (dla). (Entered: 06/15/2018)
85 ANSWER to 76 Amended Complaint filed by Utah High School Activities Association.(Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 06/21/2018)

06/22/2018 06/25/2018 06/28/2018 06/29/2018
07/05/2018 07/05/2018 07/06/2018 07/11/2018 07/11/2018

86 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 67 MOTION to Certify Class filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Plaintiff's Initial Disclosures (Redacted))(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 06/22/2018)
87 ERRATA to 84 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Defendant Utah High School Activities Association . (Attachments: # 1 Errata Table of Contents)(Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 06/25/2018)
88 REPLY to Response to Motion re 67 MOTION to Certify Class (UHSAA's Opposition) filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
89 REPLY to Response to Motion re 66 MOTION for Reconsideration Per Rule 54(b) re 44 Order on Motion to Certify Class, Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Vande Veegaete, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Brad Sorensen, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of Robert Dowdle)(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 06/29/2018)
90 NOTICE of Change of Contact Information by I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons (Fonnesbeck, Jacob) (Entered: 07/05/2018)
91 REPLY to Response to Motion re 67 MOTION to Certify Class ( reply to Districts' Opposition) filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 07/05/2018)
92 SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL Philip S. Lott replacing Darin B. Goff as counsel on behalf of Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District. (Lott, Philip) (Entered: 07/06/2018)
93 Jordan Defendants' ANSWER to 76 Amended Complaint with Jury Demand filed by Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District.(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 07/11/2018)
94 Granite Defendants' ANSWER to 76 Amended Complaint with Jury Demand filed by Martin Bates, Granite School District.(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 07/11/2018)

07/11/2018

95 Canyons Defendants' ANSWER to 76 Amended Complaint with Jury Demand filed by James Briscoe, Canyons School District.(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 07/11/2018)

07/12/2018

96 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 07/12/2018)

07/16/2018

97 ORDER granting 96 Motion for Leave to File Surreply to 66 Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiffs shall file their surreply on or before July 17, 2018 and will limit the surreply to attaching UHSAA's discovery responses which were served on July 10, 2018, the UHSAA's board meeting minutes, and the UHSAA handbook. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 7/16/2018. (jwt) (Entered: 07/16/2018)

07/16/2018

98 Sur-reply MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 66 MOTION for Reconsideration Per Rule 54(b) re 44 Order on Motion to Certify Class, Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (UHSAA Discovery), # 2 Exhibit B (UHSAA Handbook), # 3 Exhibit C (BOT Minutes 3-23-17), # 4 Exhibit D (BOT Minutes 1-25-18))(Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 07/16/2018)

07/16/2018

99 RESPONSE to Motion re 96 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District. (Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 07/16/2018)

07/17/2018

100 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Judge Robert J. Shelby: Motion hearing held on 7/17/2018. The court hears oral argument and rules as follows: Docket entry 66 MOTION for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 54(b) re: 44 Order on Motion to Certify Class, Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District is DENIED. Docket entry 67 Motion to Certify Class filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. Attorney for Plaintiff: Loren Washburn, Brent Gordon, Mark Smith; Attorney for Defendants Mark Van Wavoner, Rachel Terry, D. Craig Parry, Ryan Stevens. Court Reporter: Ed Young.(mjm) (Entered: 07/20/2018)

08/15/2018

101 Stipulated MOTION to Amend/Correct 51 Scheduling Order, filed by Defendant Utah High School Activities Association. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 08/15/2018)

08/20/2018 102 ORDER granting 101 Stipulated Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 8/20/18. (dla) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

09/07/2018

103 Redacted MOTION for Leave to File Joint Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1 - REDACTED Joint Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 09/07/2018)

09/07/2018

104 MOTION for Leave to File Sealed Document re 103 Redacted MOTION for Leave to File Joint Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 09/07/2018)

09/07/2018

105 **SEALED DOCUMENT** re 103 Redacted MOTION for Leave to File Joint Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District

NOTE: Filer is instructed to serve the sealed document on all other parties.. (Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 09/07/2018)

09/13/2018

106 DOCKET TEXT ORDER No attached document. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file a joint briefing or separate briefings on the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) factors by or on September 20th, 2018. Defendants must file their response, if any, by or on September 27th, 2018. Signed by Judge Robert J. Shelby on 9/13/2018. (mjm) (Entered: 09/13/2018)

09/17/2018

107 Motions No Longer Referred: 103 Redacted MOTION for Leave to File Joint Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class will be addressed by the District Court. (amn) (Entered: 09/17/2018)

09/17/2018

108 ORDER granting 104 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Exhibit 1 to Joint Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class. Defendants are instructed to serve a copy of the sealed document on all parties. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 9/17/18. (dla) (Entered: 09/17/2018)

09/20/2018

109 MEMORANDUM in Support re 67 MOTION to Certify Class Containing Discussio of Rule 23(g) Factors filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 09/20/2018)

09/21/2018

110 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 103 Redacted MOTION for Leave to File Joint Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 09/21/2018)

09/27/2018

111 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 67 MOTION to Certify Class Containing Discussion of Rule 23(g) Factors filed by Defendant Utah High School Activities Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures, # 2 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Responses to UHSAA's First Set of Discovery to Plaintiffs)(Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 09/27/2018)

09/27/2018

112 RESPONSE re 109 Memorandum in Support of Motion,Containing Discussion of 23(g) Factors filed by Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District. (Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 09/27/2018)

10/05/2018

113 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 103 Redacted MOTION for Leave to File Joint Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 10/05/2018)

10/09/2018

114 ORDER granting 113 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 103 Redacted MOTION for Leave to File Joint Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class. Replies due by 10/16/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 10/8/2018. (jwt) (Entered: 10/09/2018)

10/09/2018

115 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting in part 67 Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class: The court hereby designates the following as class counsel: D. Loren Washburn, Mark Smith, and Jacob Fonnesbeck. The court declines to appoint Brent Gordon as counsel

because he is likely to be a necessary witness. The class representatives shall be the named student plaintiffs: S.G., L.D., B.S., M.C., D.R., I.N., and I.C. Signed by Judge Robert J. Shelby on 10/9/18. (dla) (Entered: 10/09/2018)

10/10/2018

116 DOCKET TEXT ORDER DENYING docket entry 103 Defendants' MOTION for Leave to File Joint Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class, docket entry 103 because it is moot. See Memorandum Decision and Order, docket entry 115 . Signed by Judge Robert J. Shelby on 10/10/2018. No attached document. (mjm) (Entered: 10/10/2018)

10/22/2018 117 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on 7/17/2018 before Judge Robert J. Shelby. Court Reporter/Transcriber Ed Young, Telephone number (801) 328-3202.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 business days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the parties intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. To redact additional information a Motion to Redact must be filed. The policy and forms are located on the court's website at www.utd.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available on the date set forth below.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 11/13/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/23/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/22/2019. (dla) Modified by removing restricted text on 1/22/2019 (rgj). (Entered: 10/22/2018)

10/23/2018

119 DOCKET TEXT ORDER. The parties are ORDERED to submit a proposed scheduling order no later than 5 November 2018. Scheduling order forms are available on the court's website at http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/usdc-forms. No attached document Signed by Judge Robert J. Shelby on 10/23/2018. (mjm) (Entered: 10/23/2018)

11/05/2018

120 Second MOTION for Amended Scheduling Order filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District. Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 11/05/2018)

11/07/2018

121 SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL Michael J. Teter replacing Philip S. Lott as counsel on behalf of Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District. (Teter, Michael) (Entered: 11/07/2018)

11/19/2018

122 NOTICE of Plaintiffs' Joinder in the Motion for Amended Scheduling Order by I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons re 120 Second MOTION for Amended Scheduling Order (Fonnesbeck, Jacob) (Entered: 11/19/2018)

11/21/2018

123 SECOND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Expert Discovery due by 6/28/2019. Dispositive or Potentially Dispositive Motions due by 7/31/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 11/21/18. (dla) (Entered: 11/21/2018)

02/08/2019

124 MOTION to Expedite Plaintiffs' Short Form Discovery Motion and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Districts' Responses to 2nd Set, # 2 Exhibit 2 Plaintiffs' Meet and Confer Letter, # 3 Exhibit 3 Districts' Response to Meet and Confer Letter, # 4 Exhibit 4 Email Correspondence, # 5 Exhibit 5 Districts' Amended Responses, # 6 Exhibit 6 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, # 7 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 02/08/2019)

02/11/2019

125 DOCKET TEXT ORDER. Plaintiffs' Short Form Discovery Motion objects to numerous discovery responses, seeks to expand the number of depositions allowed and requests an opportunity to file further briefing 124 . Given the number and complexity of the matters at issue, the court concludes that short form briefing is not appropriate. See, DUCivR 37-1(7)(C). Accordingly, Plaintiff may file its motion to compel [124-6] on the case docket to which standard briefing times will apply. See, DUCivR 7-1. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 02/11/2019. No attached document. (amn) (Entered: 02/11/2019)

02/11/2019

126 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses, Number of Depositions, and Sanctions and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (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 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 02/11/2019)

02/19/2019

127 MOTION for Leave to File Overlength Brief in Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice

Johnson, Jordan School District. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 02/19/2019)

02/20/2019

128 ORDER granting 127 Defendant Districts' Motion to File Overlength Brief in Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery: Districts may file an overlength memorandum not exceeding fifteen pages, plus exhibits. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 2/20/19. (dla) (Entered: 02/20/2019)

02/20/2019

129 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 126 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses, Number of Depositions, and Sanctions and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendant Utah High School Activities Association. (Parry, D.) (Entered: 02/20/2019)

02/20/2019

130 Third MOTION to Amend/Correct and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Third Amended Complaint) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 02/20/2019)

02/20/2019

131 MOTION to Conduct Survey of Female Students' Interests in Football filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - 2010 Part Three Clarification, # 2 Exhibit B - Declaration of Larry Ledgerwood, # 3 Exhibit C - UT Girls Football Interest Survey) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 02/20/2019)

02/20/2019

132 RESPONSE to Motion re 126 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses, Number of Depositions, and Sanctions and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - B. Gordon Deposition, # 2 Exhibit 2 - S.G. Deposition, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Plaintiffs' Response to UHSAA's First Set of Discovery, # 4 Exhibit 4 - UHSAA's Regions & Classifications)(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 02/20/2019)

02/27/2019

133 REPLY to Response to Motion re 126 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses, Number of Depositions, and Sanctions and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 02/27/2019)

03/04/2019

134 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 131 MOTION to Conduct Survey of Female Students' Interests in Football Unopposed filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons

School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District, Utah High School Activities Association. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 03/04/2019)

03/04/2019

135 ORDER granting 134 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 131 MOTION to Conduct Survey of Female Students' Interests in Football: Responses due by 3/15/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 3/4/19 (alt) (Entered: 03/04/2019)

03/06/2019

136 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 130 Third MOTION to Amend/Correct and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Redacted Deposition of M.C., # 2 Exhibit 2 - Redacted Deposition of I.C.)(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 03/06/2019)

03/06/2019 137 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 130 Third MOTION to Amend/Correct and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendant Utah High School Activities Association. (Parry, D.) (Entered: 03/06/2019)

03/07/2019

138 Motions No Longer Referred: Plaintiffs' Third Motion to Amend Complaint 130 will be addressed by the District Court. (amn) (Entered: 03/07/2019)

03/13/2019

139 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTIONS A motion hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery Responses 126 and Plaintiffs' Motion to Conduct Survey of Female Students' Interests in Football 131 is set before Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 4/26/2019 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 8.400. (Entered: 03/13/2019)

03/15/2019 140 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 131 MOTION to Conduct Survey of Female Students' Interests in Football filed by Defendant Utah High School Activities Association. (Parry, D.) (Entered: 03/15/2019)

03/15/2019

141 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 131 MOTION to Conduct Survey of Female Students' Interests in Football filed by Defendants Canyons School District, Granite School District, Jordan School District. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: Defendants' Proposed Survey, # 2 Exhibit 2: LifeTrack Washington Survey, # 3 Exhibit 3: Joseph Quinn Monson Survey Analysis)(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 03/15/2019)

03/18/2019

142 ERRATA to 141 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Defendants Canyons School District, Granite School District, Jordan School District . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2: Joseph Quinn Monson Survey Analysis, # 2 Exhibit 3: LifeTrack Washington Survey)(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 03/18/2019)

03/20/2019

143 REPLY to Response to Motion re 130 Third MOTION to Amend/Correct and Memorandum in Support of Third Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Washburn, D.) (Entered: 03/20/2019)

03/29/2019

144 REPLY to Response to Motion re 131 MOTION to Conduct Survey of Female Students' Interests in Football filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Washburn, D.) (Entered: 03/29/2019)

04/11/2019

145 DOCKET TEXT ORDER. In preparation for the upcoming hearing 139 , each party is instructed to file a separate table for the specific category of discovery at issue (interrogatory, request for production, request for admission). Each table shall succinctly identify the discovery request, outstanding dispute and proposed resolution. The parties shall file the tables with the court no later than close of business on April 19, 2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 04/11/2019. (amn) (Entered: 04/11/2019)

04/19/2019

146 RESPONSE re 145 Order,,,Districts' Table Summarizing Discovery Dispute filed by Canyons School District, Granite School District, Jordan School District. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 04/19/2019)

04/19/2019

147 RESPONSE re 145 Order,,,Plaintiffs' Table Summarizing Discovery Disputes filed by I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Washburn, D.) (Entered: 04/19/2019)

04/26/2019

148 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead: Motion Hearing held on 4/26/2019 re 131 MOTION to Conduct Survey of Female Students' Interests in Football filed by Barbara Calchera, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Lisa Simmons, Jason Dixon, I. C., Bret Robison, 126 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses, Number of Depositions, and Sanctions and Memorandum in Support filed by Barbara Calchera, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Lisa Simmons, Jason Dixon, I. C., Bret Robison. The Court hears argument from the parties. Written Order to follow. Written Order to follow oral order: Yes. Attorney for Plaintiff: Loren Washburn and Jacob Fonnesbeck, Attorney for Defendant Rachel Terry and Michael Teter. Court Reporter: Electronic.(Time Start: 9:29:18, Time End: 11:01:24, Room 8.400.) (tls) (Entered: 04/26/2019)

04/29/2019 149 RULING & ORDER: Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel 126 is DENIED; and as set forth in the Order, Plaintiffs' Motion to Conduct Survey is

GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 4/29/19. (dla) (Entered: 04/29/2019)

04/30/2019

150 Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Terry, Rachel) Modified docket event on 5/1/2019 (jds). (Entered: 04/30/2019)

05/01/2019 151 ORDER granting 150 Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery: Discovery due by 7/8/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 5/1/2019. (jds) (Entered: 05/01/2019)

05/10/2019

152 DESIGNATION OF EXPERTS Rob Cuff and Brenan Jackson filed by Defendant Utah High School Activities Association.(Parry, D.) (Entered: 05/10/2019)

05/10/2019

153 DESIGNATION OF EXPERTS Quin Monson, Scott Riding, Jody Morgan, David Vande Veegaete, Robert Dowdle, Rob Cuff, and Brenan Jackson filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District.(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 05/10/2019)

05/13/2019

154 ORDER denying 130 Plaintiffs' Third Motion for Leave to Amend Without Prejudice: Plaintiffs may file within seven (7) days of this Order a Fourth Motion to Amend applying the relevant legal standards, and providing a sufficient explanation to support the relief requested. Signed by Judge Robert J. Shelby on 5/13/19. (dla) (Entered: 05/13/2019)

05/17/2019 155 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on 4/16/2019 before Judge Dustin B. Pead. Court Reporter/Transcriber Patti Walker, Telephone number 801-364-5440.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 business days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the parties intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. To redact additional information a Motion to Redact must be filed. The policy and forms are located on the court's website at www.utd.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available on the date set forth below.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 6/7/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/17/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/15/2019. (las) Modified by removing restricted text on 8/15/2019 (rgj). (Entered: 05/17/2019)

05/20/2019

157 Fourth MOTION to Amend/Correct 76 Amended Complaint and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 05/20/2019)

05/21/2019

158 Motions No Longer Referred: 157 Fourth MOTION to Amend/Correct 76 Amended Complaint to be addressed by the District Court. See, 154 . (amn) (Entered: 05/21/2019)

05/24/2019

159 NOTICE of Plaintiffs' Statement of Results of Meet and Confer Process Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion to Conduct Survey of Female Students' Interests in Football by I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons re 149 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (Washburn, D.) (Entered: 05/24/2019)

05/24/2019

160 Redacted MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix of Evidence, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19 to 19-5, # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21, # 23 Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit 23, # 25 Exhibit 24, # 26 Exhibit 25, # 27 Exhibit 26, # 28 Exhibit 27, # 29 Exhibit 28, # 30 Exhibit 29, # 31 Exhibit 30, # 32 Exhibit 31, # 33 Exhibit 32, # 34 Exhibit 33, # 35 Exhibit 34, # 36 Exhibit 35, # 37 Exhibit 36, # 38 Exhibit 37, # 39 Exhibit 38, # 40 Exhibit 39, # 41 Exhibit 40, # 42 Exhibit 41, # 43 Exhibit 42, # 44 Exhibit 43, # 45 Exhibit 44, # 46 Exhibit 45, # 47 Exhibit 46, # 48 Exhibit 47, # 49 Exhibit 48, # 50 Exhibit 49, # 51 Exhibit 50, # 52 Exhibit 51 to 51-1, # 53 Exhibit 52, # 54 Exhibit 53, # 55 Exhibit 54)(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 05/24/2019)

05/24/2019 161 MOTION to Seal and Memorandum in Support re 160 Redacted MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support filed

by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 05/24/2019)

05/24/2019

162 **SEALED DOCUMENT** re 161 MOTION to Seal and Memorandum in Support re 160 Redacted MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support , 160 Redacted MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons

NOTE: Filer is instructed to serve the sealed document on all other parties.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 27, # 2 Exhibit 30, # 3 Exhibit 31, # 4 Exhibit 32, # 5 Exhibit 40, # 6 Exhibit 44, # 7 Exhibit 45, # 8 Exhibit 46, # 9 Exhibit 51, # 10 Exhibit 53)(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 05/24/2019)

05/24/2019

163 MOTION / Request for Judicial Notice re 160 Redacted MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 05/24/2019)

05/24/2019

164 NOTICE of DISTRICTS STATEMENT OF DISPUTED ISSUES AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS by Canyons School District, Granite School District, Jordan School District re 149 Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit) (Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 05/24/2019)

05/28/2019

165 Motions No Longer Referred: Plaintiffs' Motion for Judicial Notice 163 of documents submitted in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment 160 shall be addressed by the District Court. (amn) (Entered: 05/28/2019)

05/31/2019

166 Supplemental BRIEF re 164 Notice (Other), 131 MOTION to Conduct Survey of Female Students' Interests in Football filed by Defendants Canyons School District, Granite School District, Jordan School District. (Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 05/31/2019)

06/03/2019

167 DOCKET TEXT ORDER. Defendants filing entitled "Supplemental Briefing" 166 seeks specific relief outside the scope of the original motion 131 and should be filed as a separate motion consistent with local rule DUCivR 7-1. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 06/03/2019. (amn) (Entered: 06/03/2019)

06/03/2019

168 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 157 Fourth MOTION to Amend/Correct 76 Amended Complaint and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendant Utah High School Activities Association. (Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 06/03/2019)

06/03/2019

169 ORDER granting 161 Motion for Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal: The following Exhibits may be filed under seal and remain sealed indefinitely, or until otherwise ordered by the Court: Exhibit 27, Exhibits 30-32, Exhibit 40, Exhibits 44-46, Exhibit 51 and Exhibit 53. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 6/3/19. (dla) (Entered: 06/03/2019)

06/03/2019

170 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 157 Fourth MOTION to Amend/Correct 76 Amended Complaint and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Deposition of M.C. (Redacted), # 2 Exhibit Deposition of I.C. (Redacted), # 3 Exhibit Email Exchange Re: Second Amended Scheduling Order)(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 06/03/2019)

06/10/2019

171 REPLY to Response to Motion re 157 Fourth MOTION to Amend/Correct 76 Amended Complaint and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 06/10/2019)

06/10/2019

172 DESIGNATION OF EXPERTS Brent Gordon filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons.(Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 06/10/2019)

06/12/2019

173 REQUEST to Submit for Decision re 157 Fourth MOTION to Amend/Correct 76 Amended Complaint and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 06/12/2019)

06/12/2019

174 Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 06/12/2019)

06/14/2019 175 REASSIGNMENT to Newly Appointed District Judge. Case Reassigned to District Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Judge Robert J. Shelby no longer assigned to the case.

Orders of the prior judge are affirmed including the order of reference to Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead under 28:636 (b)(1)(A) re 29 Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge,.

Case number will now read 2:17-cv-00677-HCN-DBP. Please make changes to document captions accordingly. (las) (Entered: 06/14/2019)

06/14/2019

176 DOCKET TEXT ORDER. Plaintiffs and counsel for Defendant Utah High School Activities Association to file an opposition, or notice of non-opposition, to the remaining Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to Re: Motions for Summary Judgment 174 on or before Tuesday June 18, 2019. Any opposition should be no more than three (3) pages in length. Defendants, excluding Utah High School Activities Association, do not need to file a reply unless requested to do so by the court. (See DUCivR 7-1 permitting the court to shorten briefing periods.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 06/14/2019. No attached document. (tmb) (Entered: 06/14/2019)

06/14/2019

177 NOTICE of Non-Opposition to Defendant Districts Motion for Extension of Time to Respond To Motion for Summary Judgment 174 by Utah High School Activities Association (Parry, D.) (Entered: 06/14/2019)

06/18/2019

178 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 174 Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Washburn, D.) (Entered: 06/18/2019)

06/18/2019

179 ORDER granting 174 Motion for Extension of Time re: 160 Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support. Districts' response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is due fifteen days after a ruling on Plaintiffs' Fourth Motion to Amend Complaint. The deadline for filing dispositive motions, currently set for July 31, 2019, is amended to thirty days following a ruling on Plaintiffs' Fourth Motion to Amend. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 6/18/2019. (jwt) (Entered: 06/18/2019)

08/30/2019

180 MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 08/30/2019)

09/04/2019 181 Motions No Longer Referred: 180 Plaintiffs' MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony will be addressed by the District Court. (amn) (Entered: 09/04/2019)

09/13/2019

182 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 180 MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit District Defendants' Expert Disclosures and Report)(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 09/13/2019)

09/27/2019

183 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 157 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint. Signed by Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. on 9/27/2019. (las) (Entered: 09/27/2019)

09/27/2019

184 NOTICE of Districts' Supplement to Statement of Disputed Issues and Proposed Solutions Re: Student Survey by Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District re 164 Notice (Other), (Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 09/27/2019)

10/02/2019

185 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL of Michael J. Teter filed by Michael J. Teter on behalf of Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District (Teter, Michael) (Entered: 10/02/2019)

10/04/2019

186 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 160 Redacted MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Canyons School District, Granite School District, Jordan School District. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Text of proposed order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 10/04/2019)

10/07/2019

187 ORDER granting 186 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 160 Redacted MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support. Responses due by 10/28/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 10/07/2019. (nl) (Entered: 10/07/2019)

10/28/2019

188 MOTION to Seal Districts' Exhibits to Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Jordan School District. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Text of proposed order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 10/28/2019)

10/28/2019

189 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Utah High School Activities Association. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Exhibit A - Plaintiffs' Response to UHSAA's First Set of Discovery, # 3 Exhibit B - Deposition of I.C., # 4 Exhibit C - Deposition of M.C., # 5 Exhibit D - Deposition of I.N, # 6 Exhibit E - Deposition of B.S., # 7 Exhibit F

- Deposition of Kaleo Teritpaia, # 8 Exhibit G - Deposition of Leon Wilcox, # 9 Exhibit H - Deposition of Pala Vaitu'u, # 10 Exhibit I Deposition of Jody Morgan)(Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 10/28/2019)

10/28/2019 190 NOTICE of Substitution, by Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District (Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 10/28/2019)

10/28/2019

191 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District. (Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 10/28/2019)

10/28/2019

192 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 160 Redacted MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District. (Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 10/28/2019)

10/28/2019

193 APPENDIX to 191 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support , 188 MOTION to Seal Districts' Exhibits to Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment,, 192 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A - UHSAA Handbook, # 2 Exhibit Ex. B - Dist. Defs Expert Disclosures, # 3 Exhibit Ex. C Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures, # 4 Exhibit Ex. D - Plaintiffs' Supplemental Disclosures, # 5 Exhibit Ex. E - Players Statement Spreadsheet, # 6 Exhibit Ex. F - UGTFL Youth Sports, # 7 Exhibit Ex. G - Posters, # 8 Exhibit Ex. H - HS Canyons Team Roster REDACTED, # 9 Exhibit Ex. I - HS West Granite Roster REDACTED, # 10 Exhibit Ex. J - HS West Granite 2 Roster REDACTED, # 11 Exhibit Ex. K - West Jordan Team Roster REDACTED, # 12 Exhibit Ex. L - Herriman I & II Roster REDACTED, # 13 Exhibit Ex. M - Riverton Roster - REDACTED, # 14 Exhibit Ex. N - Copper Hills Roster - REDACTED, # 15 Exhibit Ex. O - Bingham Team Roster - REDACTED, # 16 Exhibit Ex. P Plaintiffs' Discovery Responses, # 17 Exhibit Ex. Q - Plaintiff S.G. Discovery Responses, # 18 Exhibit Ex. R - UHSSA Sports and Season List, # 19 Exhibit Ex. S - Forbes Article, # 20 Exhibit Ex. T - KSL Article, # 21 Exhibit Ex. U - I.N. Depo - REDACTED, # 22 Exhibit Ex. V - B.S. Depo - REDACTED, # 23 Exhibit Ex. W - D.R. Depo REDACTED, # 24 Exhibit Ex. X - L.D. Depo - REDACTED, # 25 Exhibit Ex. Y - S.G. Depo - REDACTED, # 26 Exhibit Ex. Z UHSAA Regions)(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 10/28/2019)

10/28/2019

194 **SEALED DOCUMENT** re 191 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support , 193 Appendix,,,,,,, 188 MOTION to Seal Districts' Exhibits to Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary Judgment,, 192 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District

NOTE: Filer is instructed to serve the sealed document on all other parties.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. E - Player Statement Spreadsheet, # 2 Exhibit Ex. H - Canyons HS Roster, # 3 Exhibit Ex. I West Granite HS Roster, # 4 Exhibit Ex. J - West Granite 2 HS Roster, # 5 Exhibit Ex. K - West Jordan HS Roster, # 6 Exhibit Ex. L Heriman I & II Roster, # 7 Exhibit Ex. M - Riverton HS Roster, # 8 Exhibit Ex. N - Copper Hills Roster, # 9 Exhibit Ex. O - Bingham HS Roster, # 10 Exhibit Ex. U - I.N. Deposition, # 11 Exhibit Ex. W - D.R. Deposition)(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 10/28/2019)

10/28/2019

195 Plaintiff's MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of their Equal Protection Claim filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J (under seal), # 12 Exhibit K (under seal), # 13 Exhibit L (under seal), # 14 Exhibit M (under seal), # 15 Exhibit N (under seal), # 16 Exhibit O (under seal), # 17 Exhibit P, # 18 Exhibit Q)(Fonnesbeck, Jacob) (Entered: 10/28/2019)

10/29/2019

196 Plaintiff's MOTION for Leave to File Sealed Document re 195 Plaintiff's MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of their Equal Protection Claim filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Fonnesbeck, Jacob) (Entered: 10/29/2019)

10/29/2019

197 **SEALED DOCUMENT** re 196 Plaintiff's MOTION for Leave to File Sealed Document re 195 Plaintiff's MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of their Equal Protection Claim , 195 Plaintiff's MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of their Equal Protection Claim filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons

NOTE: Filer is instructed to serve the sealed document on all other

parties.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit J - S.G. Depo (under seal), # 2 Exhibit K - M.C. Depo (under seal), # 3 Exhibit L - B.S. Depo (under seal), # 4 Exhibit M - L.D. Depo (under seal), # 5 Exhibit N - I.N. Depo (under seal), # 6 Exhibit O - D.R. Depo (under seal))(Fonnesbeck, Jacob) (Entered: 10/29/2019)

10/29/2019 198 Remark - Anthony Godfrey was added as a defendant and defendant Patrice Johnson was terminated per 160 Notice of Substitution. (rks) (Entered: 10/29/2019)

10/29/2019 199 ORDER granting 196 Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 10/29/2019. (nl) (Entered: 10/29/2019)

11/04/2019 200 ORDER granting 188 Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 11/4/2019. (las) (Entered: 11/04/2019)

11/25/2019

201 Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Terry, Rachel) Modified on 11/26/2019 by correcting motion type (las). (Entered: 11/25/2019)

11/26/2019

202 ORDER granting 201 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 191 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support , 195 Plaintiff's MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of their Equal Protection Claim, 160 Redacted MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support , 189 MOTION for Summary Judgment Replies due by 1/9/2020. Responses due by 12/12/2019 Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 11/26/2019. (las) (Entered: 11/26/2019)

12/12/2019

203 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 195 Plaintiff's MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of their Equal Protection Claim filed by Defendant Utah High School Activities Association. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J)(Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 12/12/2019)

12/12/2019

204 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 195 Plaintiff's MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of their Equal Protection Claim filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Anthony Godfrey. (Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 12/12/2019)

12/12/2019

205 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 189 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix of Evidence, # 2 Exhibit R)(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 12/12/2019)

12/12/2019

206 REPLY to Response to Motion re 160 Redacted MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 55)(Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 12/12/2019)

12/12/2019

207 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 191 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix of Evidence in Support of Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Districts' Motion for Summary Judgment, # 2 Exhibit R)(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 12/12/2019)

01/07/2020

208 MOTION for Leave to File Overlength Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendant Utah High School Activities Association. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 01/07/2020)

01/08/2020

209 ORDER granting 208 Motion for Leave to File Overlength Document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 1/8/2020. (las) (Entered: 01/08/2020)

01/09/2020 210 Defendant's REPLY to Response to Motion re 189 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Utah High School Activities Association. (Parry, D.) (Entered: 01/09/2020)

01/09/2020

211 REPLY to Response to Motion re 191 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Jordan School District. (Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 01/09/2020)

01/09/2020

212 REPLY to Response to Motion re 195 Plaintiff's MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of their Equal Protection Claim filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix of Evidence, # 2 Exhibit S)(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 01/09/2020)

01/10/2020 213 REQUEST to Submit for Decision re 189 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Utah High School Activities Association. (Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 01/10/2020)

01/14/2020

214 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: 191 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support , 180 MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony and Memorandum in Support , 195 Plaintiff's MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of their Equal Protection Claim, 160 Redacted MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support , 189 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 163 MOTION / Request for Judicial Notice re 160 Redacted MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support and Memorandum in Support : (Notice generated by HCN chambers.

Motion Hearing set for 3/17/2020 at 02:00 PM in Rm 7.300 before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. (mlp) (Entered: 01/14/2020)

01/22/2020

215 AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: 191 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support , 180 MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony and Memorandum in Support , 195 Plaintiff's MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of their Equal Protection Claim, 160 Redacted MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support , 189 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 163 MOTION / Request for Judicial Notice re 160 Redacted MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support and Memorandum in Support : (Notice generated by HCN chambers.

Motion Hearing RESET for 2/20/2020 at 03:00 PM in Rm 7.300 before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. (mlp) (Entered: 01/22/2020)

01/24/2020

216 REQUEST to Submit for Decision re 166 Brief, 159 Notice (Other), 184 Notice (Other), filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Washburn, D.) (Entered: 01/24/2020)

02/03/2020

217 MOTION to Deny or Stay Plaintiffs' Request to Conduct Survey re 216 Request to Submit for Decision and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Canyons School District, Granite School District, Jordan School District. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Girl and Boy Athletic Interest Survey, # 2 Exhibit B - Athletic Survey Instructions, # 3 Exhibit C - Email Re Request From Brent Gordon) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 02/03/2020)

02/04/2020 218 Motions No Longer Referred: MOTION to Deny or Stay Plaintiffs' Request to Conduct Survey 217 will be handled by the District Court. (Entered: 02/04/2020)

02/18/2020

219 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 217 MOTION to Deny or Stay Plaintiffs' Request to Conduct Survey re 216 Request to Submit for Decision and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Washburn, D.) (Entered: 02/18/2020)

02/20/2020 220 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr.

Motion Hearing held on 2/20/2020 re 191 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support filed by Jordan School District, Canyons School District, Martin Bates, Granite School District, James Briscoe, Patrice Johnson, 195 Plaintiff's MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of their Equal Protection Claim filed by Barbara Calchera, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Lisa Simmons, Jason Dixon, I. C., Bret Robison, 180 MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony and Memorandum in Support filed by Barbara Calchera, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Lisa Simmons, Jason Dixon, I. C., Bret Robison, 189 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Utah High School Activities Association, 163 MOTION / Request for Judicial Notice re 160 Redacted MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support and Memorandum in Support filed by Barbara Calchera, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Lisa Simmons, Jason Dixon, I. C., Bret Robison, 160 Redacted MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support filed by Barbara Calchera, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Lisa Simmons, Jason Dixon, I. C., Bret Robison.

Court heard argument and took under advisement 160 Motion for Summary Judgment; took under advisement 163 Motion; took under advisement 180 Motion to Exclude; took under advisement 189 Motion for Summary Judgment ; took under advisement 191 Motion for Summary Judgment; took under advisement 195 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

Attorney for Plaintiff: D. Loren Washburn, Mark L. Smith, Brent Gordon, Attorney for Defendant: Rachel G. Terry, D. Craig Parry, Mark O. VanWagoner, Michael S. Lehr. Court Reporter: Teena Green.(Time Start: 3:11, Time End: 5:10, Room 7.3.) (mlp) (Entered: 02/25/2020)
03/03/2020 221 REPLY to Response to Motion re 217 MOTION to Deny or Stay Plaintiffs' Request to Conduct Survey re 216 Request to Submit for

Decision and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Canyons School District, Granite School District, Jordan School District. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Survey Report Email, # 2 Exhibit B-Girls HS Sports Interest Report, # 3 Exhibit C-Questionnaire, # 4 Exhibit DClassroom Instructions, # 5 Exhibit E-Plaintiffs' Survey, # 6 Exhibit FPlaintiffs' Amended Survey, # 7 Exhibit G-2010 Policy Clarification)(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 03/03/2020)

03/09/2020

222 MOTION to Supplement the Record on the Parties' Motion for Summary Judgment and to File Overlength Brief re 160 Redacted MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 03/09/2020)

03/10/2020

223 Motions No Longer Referred: Plaintiffs' Motion to Supplement the Record on the Parties' Motion for Summary Judgment and to File Overlength Brief 222 will be handled by the District Court. (amn) (Entered: 03/10/2020)

03/10/2020

224 Supplemental BRIEF Clarifying Plaintiffs' Dates of Birth and Anticipated Graduation Dates filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Washburn, D.) (Entered: 03/10/2020)

03/10/2020

225 MOTION to Strike 221 Reply Memorandum/Reply to Response to Motion,, and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 03/10/2020)

03/11/2020 226 Motions No Longer Referred: Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike 225 will be addressed by the District Court. (amn) (Entered: 03/11/2020)

03/17/2020

227 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of held on February 20, 2020 before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr.. Court Reporter/Transcriber Teena Green, Telephone number 801-910-4092.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 business days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the parties intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. To redact additional information a Motion to Redact

must be filed. The policy and forms are located on the court's website at www.utd.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available on the date set forth below.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 4/7/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/17/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/15/2020. (las) Modified by removing restricted text on 6/15/2020 (nl). (Entered: 03/17/2020)

03/23/2020

229 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 222 MOTION to Supplement the Record on the Parties' Motion for Summary Judgment and to File Overlength Brief re 160 Redacted MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support and Memorandum in Support , 225 MOTION to Strike 221 Reply Memorandum/Reply to Response to Motion,, and Memorandum in Support and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Jordan School District. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 03/23/2020)

03/25/2020

230 ORDER granting 229 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 225 MOTION to Strike 221 Reply Memorandum/Reply to Response to Motion,, and Memorandum in Support , 222 MOTION to Supplement the Record on the Parties' Motion for Summary Judgment and to File Overlength Brief re 160 Redacted MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support and Memorandum in Support. Responses due by 3/27/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 3/25/2020. (las) (Entered: 03/25/2020)

03/27/2020

231 MEMORANDUM in Support re 225 MOTION to Strike 221 Reply Memorandum/Reply to Response to Motion,, and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Jordan School District. (Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 03/27/2020)

03/27/2020

232 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 222 MOTION to Supplement the Record on the Parties' Motion for Summary Judgment and to File Overlength Brief re 160 Redacted MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support and Memorandum in Support filed by

Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Jordan School District. (Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 03/27/2020)

04/01/2020

233 DOCKET TEXT ORDER. 222 Motion to Supplement the Record on the Parties' Motion for Summary Judgment and to File Overlength Brief is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are directed to file the Supplemental Brief attached to the Motion. No later than April 17, 2020, Defendants may file a brief addressing the Districts' Survey and its results, see Dkt. 2211 to Dkt. 221-4, and responding to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief. Signed by Judge Howard C. Nielson Jr., on April 1, 2020. (mtw) (Entered: 04/01/2020)

04/02/2020

234 Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment on Title IX Issues Addressing the District Defendants' Recently Produced Survey Results BRIEF re 160 Redacted MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 04/02/2020)

04/03/2020

235 REPLY to Response to Motion re 225 MOTION to Strike 221 Reply Memorandum/Reply to Response to Motion,, and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Fonnesbeck, Jacob) (Entered: 04/03/2020)

04/17/2020

236 RESPONSE re 234 Brief,,, filed by Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Jordan School District, Utah High School Activities Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Board of Trustees Meeting 11-22-2019) Attorney Rachel G. Terry added to party Utah High School Activities Association(pty:dft)(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 04/17/2020)

05/15/2020

237 REQUEST to Submit for Decision re 234 Brief,, 225 MOTION to Strike 221 Reply Memorandum/Reply to Response to Motion,, and Memorandum in Support , 160 Redacted MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Washburn, D.) (Entered: 05/15/2020)

05/26/2020

238 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: 160 Redacted MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support , 225 MOTION to Strike 221 Reply Memorandum/Reply to Response to Motion,, and Memorandum in Support , 217 MOTION to Deny or Stay Plaintiffs' Request to Conduct Survey re 216 Request to Submit for Decision and

Memorandum in Support , 191 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support , 195 Plaintiff's MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of their Equal Protection Claim, 180 MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony and Memorandum in Support , 189 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 163 MOTION / Request for Judicial Notice re 160 Redacted MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support and Memorandum in Support : (Notice generated by HCN chambers.

Telephonic Oral Ruling Hearing set for 6/1/2020 at 01:00 PM before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr.

Information will be emailed to counsel prior to hearing. Members of the public or media who are interested in listening to this hearing may contact chambers at utdecf_nielson@utd.uscourts.gov (mlp) (Entered: 05/26/2020)

06/01/2020

239 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Motion Hearing held on 6/1/2020 re 191 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support filed by Jordan School District, Canyons School District, Martin Bates, Granite School District, James Briscoe, Patrice Johnson, 225 MOTION to Strike 221 Reply Memorandum/Reply to Response to Motion and Memorandum in Support filed by Barbara Calchera, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Lisa Simmons, Jason Dixon, I. C., Bret Robison, 189 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Utah High School Activities Association, 163 MOTION / Request for Judicial Notice re 160 Redacted MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support and Memorandum in Support filed by Barbara Calchera, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Lisa Simmons, Jason Dixon, I. C., Bret Robison, 160 Redacted MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support filed by Barbara Calchera, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Lisa Simmons, Jason Dixon, I. C., Bret Robison, 217 MOTION to Deny or Stay Plaintiffs' Request to Conduct Survey re 216 Request to Submit for Decision and Memorandum in Support filed by Jordan School District, Canyons School District, Granite School District, 131 MOTION to Conduct Survey of Female Students' Interests in Football filed by Barbara Calchera, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Lisa Simmons, Jason Dixon, I. C., Bret Robison, 195 Plaintiff's MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of their Equal Protection Claim filed by Barbara Calchera, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Lisa Simmons, Jason Dixon, I. C., Bret Robison, 180 MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony and Memorandum in Support filed by Barbara Calchera, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Lisa Simmons, Jason Dixon, I. C., Bret Robison.

All parties appearing telephonically. Court made the following rulings: 191 MOTION for Summary Judgment is GRANTED with respect to all Title IX claims against Canyons School District and with respect to Count III against all Defendants. This motion is otherwise DENIED. 160 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 189 MOTION for Summary Judgment, and 195 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment are DENIED. 163 Motion for Judicial Notice and 217 Motion to Deny or Stay Plaintiffs' Request to Conduct Survey are GRANTED. 180 Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony and 225 Motion to Strike are DENIED. To the extent it remained outstanding, 131 Motion to Conduct a Survey is DENIED.

The Court ordered a joint report from the parties regarding potential trial dates to be filed no later than Wednesday, June 10, 2020.

Written Order to follow oral order: no.

Attorney for Plaintiff: Mark L. Smith, Brent Gordon, D. Loren Washburn, Attorney for Defendant: Rachel G. Terry, D. Craig Parry, Mark O. VanWagoner, Michael S. Lehr. Court Reporter: Teena Green.(Time Start: 1:00, Time End: 1:10, Room telephonic.) (mlp) (Entered: 06/01/2020)

06/05/2020

240 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Telephonic Oral Ruling held on 6/1/2020 before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr.. Court Reporter/Transcriber Teena Green, RPR, CRR, CBC. Telephone number 801-910-4092.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 business days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the parties intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. To redact additional information a Motion to Redact must be filed. The policy and forms are located on the court's website at www.utd.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available on the date set forth below.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 6/26/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/6/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/3/2020. (lnp) Modified by removing restricted text on 9/3/2020 (nl). (Entered: 06/05/2020)

06/10/2020 242 STATUS REPORT - Joint Report Regarding Potential Trial Dates by I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Washburn, D.) (Entered: 06/10/2020)

06/10/2020

243 NOTICE of Appearance by S. Shane Stroud on behalf of Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Jordan School District (Stroud, S.) (Entered: 06/10/2020)

06/18/2020

244 NOTICE OF HEARING: (Notice generated by HCN chambers) Twelve Day Bench Trial set for 9/8/2020 - 9/18/2020 at 10:00 AM and to continue 9/23/2020 - 9/25/2020 in Rm 7.300 before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. (mlp) (Entered: 06/18/2020)

06/18/2020

245 NOTICE OF HEARING: (Notice generated by HCN chambers) Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/1/2020 at 01:00 PM in Rm 7.300 before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. (mlp) (Entered: 06/18/2020)

06/29/2020 246 TRIAL ORDER signed by Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr., on June 29, 2020. (See attached order) (mtw) (Entered: 06/29/2020)

07/01/2020

247 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District, Utah High School Activities Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 07/01/2020)

07/02/2020 248 Motions No Longer Referred: 247 Defendants' MOTION to Disqualify Counsel will be addressed by the District Court. (Entered: 07/02/2020)

07/06/2020 249 NOTICE of Appearance by Trinity S. Jordan on behalf of I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons (Jordan, Trinity) (Entered: 07/06/2020)

07/06/2020

250 NOTICE of Intent to Offer Survey Expert Testimony at Trial by Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Jordan School District (Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 07/06/2020)

07/07/2020 251 NOTICE of Appearance by Tyler Anne Dever on behalf of I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons (Dever, Tyler) (Entered: 07/07/2020)

07/15/2020 252 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 247 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara

Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Jordan, Trinity) (Entered: 07/15/2020)

07/20/2020

253 DESIGNATION OF EXPERTS Donna Lopiano, Ph.D. filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons.(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 07/20/2020)

07/22/2020

254 Defendant's MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages and Memorandum in Support re Motion to Decertify Class filed by Defendant Utah High School Activities Association. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 07/22/2020)

07/23/2020

255 ORDER granting 254 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages re 247 Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 7/23/20 (alt) (Entered: 07/23/2020)

07/23/2020

256 MOTION to Decertify Class and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District, Utah High School Activities Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - I.N. Deposition Transcript) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 07/23/2020)

07/23/2020

257 MOTION in Limine and Memorandum in Support to Limit Testimony of Donna A. Lopiano (Expedited) Briefing and Ruling Requested filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Transcript of 6-1-2020 Telephonic Ruling, # 2 Exhibit B - Expert Report of Donna A. Lopiano)(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 07/23/2020)

07/23/2020

258 Defendant's MOTION to Expedite Briefing Schedule for Motion in Limine to Limit Testimony of Donna A. Lopiano filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Jordan School District. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 07/23/2020)

07/23/2020

259 DOCKET TEXT ORDER. 258 Motion to Expedite is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall respond to 257 Motion in Limine to Limit Testimony of Donna A. Lopiano no later than July 31, 2020. The District Defendants may file a reply no later than August 7, 2020. Signed by Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr., on July 23, 2020. (mtw) (Entered: 07/23/2020)

07/27/2020 260 Motions No Longer Referred: Defendants' MOTION to Decertify Class 256 (Entered: 07/27/2020)

07/29/2020

261 REPLY to Response to Motion re 247 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District, Utah High School Activities Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Gordon Deposition 1, # 2 Exhibit B - Gordon Deposition 2)(Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 07/29/2020)

07/29/2020

262 REQUEST to Submit for Decision re 247 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendant Utah High School Activities Association. (Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 07/29/2020)

07/31/2020

263 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 257 MOTION in Limine and Memorandum in Support to Limit Testimony of Donna A. Lopiano (Expedited) Briefing and Ruling Requested filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Larson Deposition Transcript)(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 07/31/2020)

08/03/2020

264 NOTICE of Substitution of Rick L. Robins for James Briscoe by Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Jordan School District (Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 08/03/2020)

08/06/2020

265 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 256 MOTION to Decertify Class and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- West Jordan High webpage screenshot)(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 08/06/2020)

08/07/2020

266 MEMORANDUM in Support re 257 MOTION in Limine and Memorandum in Support to Limit Testimony of Donna A. Lopiano (Expedited) Briefing and Ruling Requested filed by Defendants Martin Bates, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins. (Stroud, S.) (Entered: 08/07/2020)

08/07/2020

267 REQUEST to Submit for Decision re 257 MOTION in Limine and Memorandum in Support to Limit Testimony of Donna A. Lopiano (Expedited) Briefing and Ruling Requested filed by Defendants Martin Bates, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins. (Stroud, S.) (Entered: 08/07/2020)

08/10/2020

268 REQUEST for Judicial Notice filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1- UHSAA Screenshots, # 2

Exhibit 2- UT State Board of Education Website, # 3 Exhibit 3- 1996 Three-Part Test Clarification, # 4 Exhibit 4- 1996 Three-Part Test Clarification, # 5 Exhibit 5- 1975 OCR Memo, # 6 Exhibit 6- 1976 OCR Manual, # 7 Exhibit 7- 1990 Title IX Investigator's Manual, # 8 Text of Proposed Order)(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

08/10/2020

269 Ex Parte (Not Sealed) MOTION for Extension of Time to Object to Defendants Rebuttal Expert Witness Designation and Expedited Briefing filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

08/10/2020

270 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Defendants from Contesting Judicial Admissions filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

08/10/2020

271 MOTION in Limine to Limit the Expert Testimony of R. Cuff and B. Jackson filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- B. Jackson Deposition 10.29.19, # 2 Exhibit B- R. Cuff Deposition 10.29.19, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

08/10/2020

272 MOTION for Extension of Time to Contest Authenticity of Defendants' Exhibits filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

08/10/2020

273 MOTION in Limine to Establish UHSAA as a State Actor filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

08/10/2020

274 MOTION to Exclude Rebuttal Expert Brent Gordon and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins, Utah High School Activities Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Gordon Deposition 1, # 2 Exhibit B - Gordon Deposition 2, # 3 Exhibit C Morgan Deposition, # 4 Exhibit D - Jackson Deposition, # 5 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

08/10/2020

275 MOTION for Leave to File Sealed Document filed by Defendants Martin Bates, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins, Utah High School Activities Association. Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

08/10/2020

276 MOTION in Limine and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins, Utah High School Activities Association. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 126 part 1 redacted, # 3 Exhibit 126 part 2 redacted, # 4 Exhibit 127 redacted)(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

08/10/2020

277 OBJECTIONS to Authenticity of Plaintiffs' Proposed Exhibits filed by Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins, Utah High School Activities Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - NFHS Participation Survey, # 2 Exhibit B - NFHS Handbook Participation Survey, # 3 Exhibit C - NFHS Participation Survey, # 4 Exhibit D - High School Yearbook Pages, # 5 Exhibit E - C.B. Instagram Post 10-6-2019, # 6 Exhibit F - Screenshot of P.H. Message, # 7 Exhibit G - Group Message Screenshot, # 8 Exhibit H - Screenshot of M.S.'s Instagram Post, # 9 Exhibit I - 2nd Image of Screenshot, # 10 Exhibit J - Group Message Screenshot, # 11 Exhibit K - Photo of Football Player, # 12 Exhibit L - Screenshot of Instagram Post, # 13 Exhibit M - Ute Conference Tax Doc, # 14 Exhibit N - Plaintiffs Trial Witness, # 15 Text of Proposed Order)(Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

08/10/2020

278 **SEALED DOCUMENT** re 277 Objections,,, 275 MOTION for Leave to File Sealed Document filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins, Utah High School Activities Association

NOTE: Filer is instructed to serve the sealed document on all other parties.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D - High School Yearbook Pages, # 2 Exhibit E - C.B. Instagram Post 10-6-2019, # 3 Exhibit F - Screenshot of P.H. Message, # 4 Exhibit G - Group Message Screenshot, # 5 Exhibit H - M.S.'s Instagram Post, # 6 Exhibit I - M.S.'s Instagram Post, # 7 Exhibit J - Group Message Screenshot, # 8 Exhibit K- Photo of Football Player, # 9 Exhibit L - Instagram Post)(Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 08/10/2020)
08/10/2020 279 **SEALED DOCUMENT** re 276 MOTION in Limine and Memorandum in Support , 275 MOTION for Leave to File Sealed

Document filed by Defendants Martin Bates, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins

NOTE: Filer is instructed to serve the sealed document on all other parties.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit under seal, # 2 Exhibit under seal)(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

08/10/2020

280 Defendant's MOTION in Limine and Memorandum in Support to Exclude Evidence of Alleged Sexual Harassment filed by Defendants Martin Bates, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Plaintiffs Proposed Trial Exhibits 137-145 (Filed Under Seal))(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

08/10/2020

281 **SEALED DOCUMENT** re 280 Defendant's MOTION in Limine and Memorandum in Support to Exclude Evidence of Alleged Sexual Harassment, 275 MOTION for Leave to File Sealed Document filed by Defendants Martin Bates, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins, Utah High School Activities Association

NOTE: Filer is instructed to serve the sealed document on all other parties.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Plaintiffs Proposed Trial Exhibits 137-145)(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

08/10/2020

282 MOTION in Limine and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins, Utah High School Activities Association. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A-Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures, # 3 Exhibit BPlaintiffs Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosures 2-22-2019, # 4 Exhibit CWitness Subpoena, # 5 Exhibit D-Plaitniffs' Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosures 7-31-2020, # 6 Exhibit E-Plaintiffs Exhibit List, # 7 Exhibit F-Aug 3 Witness and Exhibit Exchange, # 8 Exhibit G part 1-Plaintiffs' Proposed Exhibits 20-23, 30-49, 72-74, 75-79, 121, and 147, # 9 Exhibit G part 2-Plaintiffs' Proposed Exhibits 20-23, 30-49, 72-74, 7579, 121, and 147, # 10 Exhibit H-under seal)(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 08/11/2020)

08/11/2020

283 MOTION to Seal Document 282 MOTION in Limine and Memorandum in Support , 275 MOTION for Leave to File Sealed Document and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins, Utah High School Activities Association. (Attachments: # 1 SEALED - Exhibit H-

Plaintiffs' Proposed Exhibits 127, 137-145) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Terry, Rachel) Modified on 8/18/2020 removed termination date - motion to be readdressed(jwt). Modified on 8/20/2020 by terming the motion and sealing Exhibit H. (lnp). (Entered: 08/11/2020)

08/11/2020

284 Motions No Longer Referred: 269 Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion for Extension of Time to Object to Defendants' Rebuttal Expert Witness Designation, 272 Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to Contest Authenticity of Defendants' Exhibits, 274 Defendants' Motion to Exclude Rebuttal Expert Brent Gordon, 275 Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document, and 283 Defendants' Motion to Seal Document. (amn) (Entered: 08/11/2020)

08/11/2020

285 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 272 MOTION for Extension of Time to Contest Authenticity of Defendants' Exhibits , 269 Ex Parte (Not Sealed) MOTION for Extension of Time to Object to Defendants Rebuttal Expert Witness Designation and Expedited Briefing filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins, Utah High School Activities Association. (Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 08/11/2020)

08/11/2020

286 DOCKET TEXT ORDER. Based on its review of the briefing regarding Dr. Lopiano's expert report, and for good cause appearing, Dkt. No. 257, Expedited Motion in Limine to Limit Testimony of Donna A. Lopiano is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Dr. Lopiano will be permitted to testify about the appropriate interpretation of the survey results. She will also be permitted to testify regarding the weight that should be accorded these results, which may include identifying flaws in the survey's methodology. Dr. Lopiano will not, however, be permitted to testify about the history and legal requirements of Title IX or matters unrelated to the survey results. In her expert report, Dr. Lopiano identifies twelve topics of potential testimony. The court will not permit her to testify regarding topics 1-4, 9, or 12. In addition, Dr. Lopiano's testimony regarding topics 10 and 11 shall be limited to interpreting the survey results and identifying any flaws in the survey's methodology. To the extent Defendants seek to continue the trial to allow them time to retain an expert to respond to Dr. Lopiano's proposed testimony, the motion is DENIED. The court finds that Defendants' currently designated experts should suffice to offer any rebuttal testimony in response to Dr. Lopiano's proposed testimony as limited by this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr., on August 11, 2020. (mtw) (Entered: 08/11/2020)

08/11/2020

287 DOCKET TEXT ORDER. After pressing for an expedited trial schedule, Plaintiffs waited until after the close of business on the very day that all objections to the authenticity of proposed exhibits and all motions in limine were due to seek extensions of these deadlines. See Dkt. Nos. 269, 272. Not only are the justifications offered by Plaintiffs for the requested extensions far from compelling, these justifications were almost certainly known to Plaintiffs well before the deadline. Plaintiffs have offered no justification for waiting until the eleventh hour to seek these extensions. 269 MOTION for Extension of Time to Object to Defendants' Rebuttal Expert Witness Designation is DENIED IN PART. Professor Monson has long been designated as one of Defendants' experts and Plaintiffs had every reason to expect that he would be designated as the rebuttal expert witness well in advance of his designation. Given the expedited context of these pretrial proceedings, the court rejects Plaintiffs' argument that they lacked sufficient time to review Professor Monson's rebuttal report. If, but only if, Professor Monson's deposition reveals a ground for moving to exclude some or all of his proposed rebuttal testimony that could not have been known to Plaintiffs, in the exercise of due diligence, before the deposition, the court will entertain an untimely motion in limine filed no later than August 21, 2019 at 5:00 PM. If Plaintiffs file such a motion, Defendants may file a response no later than August 28, 2019, at 5:00 PM. No reply will be permitted. 272 Motion for Extension of Time to Contest Authenticity of Defendants' Exhibits is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiffs may file any objections to the authenticity of Defendants' proposed exhibits no later than Wednesday, August 12. Defendants may respond to any objections no later than Wednesday, August 19. Given Plaintiffs' failure to comply with the trial order, the court will not entertain any objections that are not clearly well taken. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr., on August 11, 2020. (mtw) (Entered: 08/11/2020)

08/12/2020

288 DOCKET TEXT ORDER. 287 DOCKET TEXT ORDER is amended to include the following sentence: The deadline for filing a reply brief in support of any objection to the authenticity of Defendants proposed exhibits shall remain as stated in 246 TRIAL ORDER. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr., on August 12, 2020. (mtw) (Entered: 08/12/2020)

08/12/2020

289 Redacted OBJECTIONS to Authenticity of Defendants' Proposed Exhibits filed by I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1011, # 2 Exhibit 1013, # 3 Exhibit 1137, # 4 Exhibit 1142, # 5 Exhibit 1143, # 6 Exhibit 1145, # 7 Exhibit 1146, # 8 Exhibit 1150, # 9 Exhibit 1178 - Redacted, # 10 Exhibit 1194 - Redacted, # 11 Exhibit 1195, # 12 Exhibit 1196 - Redacted, # 13 Exhibit 1197 - Redacted, # 14

Exhibit 1198 - Redacted, # 15 Exhibit 1199 - Redacted, # 16 Exhibit 1201 - Redacted, # 17 Exhibit 1202 - Redacted, # 18 Exhibit 1203 Redacted, # 19 Exhibit 1204 - Redacted, # 20 Exhibit 1205 - Redacted, # 21 Exhibit 1206 - Redacted, # 22 Exhibit 1207 - Redacted, # 23 Exhibit 1209 - Redacted, # 24 Exhibit 1210 - Redacted, # 25 Exhibit 1215, # 26 Exhibit 1219, # 27 Exhibit 1383, # 28 Exhibit 1385, # 29 Exhibit 1386, # 30 Exhibit 1402, # 31 Exhibit 1404)(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 08/12/2020)

08/12/2020

290 MOTION for Leave to File Sealed Document re 289 Objections,,,, to Authenticity of Defendants' Proposed Exhibits filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 08/12/2020)

08/12/2020

291 **SEALED DOCUMENT** re 289 Objections,,,, 290 MOTION for Leave to File Sealed Document re 289 Objections,,,, to Authenticity of Defendants' Proposed Exhibits filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons

NOTE: Filer is instructed to serve the sealed document on all other parties.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1011, # 2 Exhibit 1013, # 3 Exhibit 1137, # 4 Exhibit 1142, # 5 Exhibit 1143, # 6 Exhibit 1145, # 7 Exhibit 1146, # 8 Exhibit 1150, # 9 Exhibit 1178, # 10 Exhibit 1194, # 11 Exhibit 1195, # 12 Exhibit 1196, # 13 Exhibit 1197, # 14 Exhibit 1198, # 15 Exhibit 1199, # 16 Exhibit 1201, # 17 Exhibit 1202, # 18 Exhibit 1203, # 19 Exhibit 1204, # 20 Exhibit 1205, # 21 Exhibit 1206, # 22 Exhibit 1207, # 23 Exhibit 1208, # 24 Exhibit 1209, # 25 Exhibit 1210, # 26 Exhibit 1215, # 27 Exhibit 1219, # 28 Exhibit 1383, # 29 Exhibit 1385, # 30 Exhibit 1386, # 31 Exhibit 1402, # 32 Exhibit 1404)(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 08/12/2020)
08/13/2020 292 RESPONSE to Motion re 273 MOTION in Limine to Establish UHSAA as a State Actor filed by Defendant Utah High School Activities Association. (Parry, D.) (Entered: 08/13/2020)

08/14/2020

293 MOTIONS REFERRED - 290 MOTION for Leave to File Sealed Document re 289 Objections to Authenticity of Defendants' Proposed Exhibits, 275 MOTION for Leave to File Sealed Document , 283 MOTION to Seal Document 282 MOTION in Limine and Memorandum in Support , 275 MOTION for Leave to File Sealed Document and Memorandum in Support Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(mlp) (Entered: 08/14/2020)

08/17/2020

294 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 270 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Defendants from Contesting Judicial Admissions filed by Defendant Utah High School Activities Association. (Parry, D.) (Entered: 08/17/2020)

08/17/2020 295 REPLY BRIEF re 289 Objections,,,, filed by Defendant Utah High School Activities Association. (Parry, D.) (Entered: 08/17/2020)

08/17/2020

296 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 276 MOTION in Limine and Memorandum in Support (Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibits 126 and 127) filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Washburn, D.) (Entered: 08/17/2020)

08/17/2020

297 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 274 MOTION to Exclude Rebuttal Expert Brent Gordon and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Washburn, D.) (Entered: 08/17/2020)

08/17/2020

298 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 282 MOTION in Limine and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-Plaintiffs' Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosures, # 2 Exhibit 2-Email Exchange re Supplemental Dsiclosures, # 3 Exhibit 3-Defendants' Trial Exhibit List, # 4 Exhibit 4Gordon Disclosures, # 5 Exhibit 5-GRAMA Request, # 6 Exhibit 6Plaintiffs' First Set of Discovery to UHSAA)(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 08/17/2020)

08/17/2020

299 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 280 Defendant's MOTION in Limine and Memorandum in Support to Exclude Evidence of Alleged Sexual Harassment filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Washburn, D.) (Entered: 08/17/2020)

08/17/2020

300 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 271 MOTION in Limine to Limit the Expert Testimony of R. Cuff and B. Jackson filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins, Utah High School Activities Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Expert Disclosure, # 2 Exhibit B Deposition Ex. 2, # 3 Exhibit C - NFHS Guidelines)(Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 08/17/2020)

08/17/2020

301 RESPONSE re 277 Objections,,,,to Authenticity of Plaintiffs' Proposed Exhibits filed by I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1

Exhibit 1- [D.E. 14-6], # 2 Exhibit 2-Defendants' Trial Exhibit List)(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 08/17/2020)

08/17/2020

302 Defendant's RESPONSE re 289 Objections,,,,, filed by Martin Bates, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins. (Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 08/17/2020)

08/17/2020

303 Joint RESPONSE re 268 Request,,, filed by Martin Bates, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins, Utah High School Activities Association. (Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 08/17/2020)

08/17/2020 304 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 247 Motion to Disqualify Counsel. Signed by Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr., on 08/17/2020. (dz) (Entered: 08/17/2020)

08/18/2020 305 DOCKET TEXT ORDER granting 275 Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 08/18/2020. (Entered: 08/18/2020)

08/18/2020

306 STRICKENDOCKET TEXT ORDER granting 283 Motion to Seal Document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 08/18/2020. Modified on 8/18/2020 (jwt). (Entered: 08/18/2020)

08/18/2020 307 Modification of Docket: re 306 Order on Motion to Seal Document. The court strikes the order and will clarify the motion relief in 283 Motion to Seal with the parties. (jwt) (Entered: 08/18/2020)

08/18/2020

308 REQUEST to Submit for Decision re 273 MOTION in Limine to Establish UHSAA as a State Actor filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Washburn, D.) (Entered: 08/18/2020)

08/20/2020 309 ORDER granting 290 Motion for Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 8/20/2020. (lnp) (Entered: 08/20/2020)

08/20/2020

310 REPLY to Response to Motion re 256 MOTION to Decertify Class and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins, Utah High School Activities Association. (Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 08/20/2020)

08/20/2020 311 REQUEST to Submit for Decision re 256 MOTION to Decertify Class and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendant Utah High School Activities Association. (Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 08/20/2020)

08/21/2020

312 REPLY to Response to Motion re 276 MOTION in Limine and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins, Utah High School Activities Association. (Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 08/21/2020)

08/21/2020

313 REPLY to Response to Motion re 270 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Defendants from Contesting Judicial Admissions filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Washburn, D.) (Entered: 08/21/2020)

08/21/2020

314 REQUEST to Submit for Decision re 294 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 270 MOTION in Limine to Preclude Defendants from Contesting Judicial Admissions, 313 Reply Memorandum/Reply to Response to Motion, filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Washburn, D.) (Entered: 08/21/2020)

08/21/2020

315 REPLY to Response to Motion re 271 MOTION in Limine to Limit the Expert Testimony of R. Cuff and B. Jackson filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Washburn, D.) (Entered: 08/21/2020)

08/21/2020

316 REQUEST to Submit for Decision re 271 MOTION in Limine to Limit the Expert Testimony of R. Cuff and B. Jackson filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Washburn, D.) (Entered: 08/21/2020)

08/21/2020

317 REPLY to Response to Motion re 282 MOTION in Limine and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins, Utah High School Activities Association. (Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 08/21/2020)

08/21/2020 318 REPLY BRIEF re 289 Objections,,,, filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Washburn, D.) (Entered: 08/21/2020)

08/21/2020 319 REPLY BRIEF re 268 Request,, for Judicial Notice filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Washburn, D.) (Entered: 08/21/2020)

08/21/2020

320 REQUEST to Submit for Decision re 268 Request,, 303 Response (NOT to motion), 319 Reply Brief (Motion for Judicial Notice) filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Washburn, D.) (Entered: 08/21/2020)

08/21/2020

321 REQUEST to Submit for Decision re 289 Objections,,,, filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Washburn, D.) (Entered: 08/21/2020)

08/21/2020

322 MOTION for Leave to File Sealed Document re 282 MOTION in Limine and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 08/21/2020)

08/21/2020

323 **SEALED DOCUMENT** re 282 MOTION in Limine and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins

NOTE: Filer is instructed to serve the sealed document on all other parties.. (Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 08/21/2020)

08/21/2020

324 REPLY to Response to Motion re 274 MOTION to Exclude Rebuttal Expert Brent Gordon and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins, Utah High School Activities Association. (Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 08/21/2020)

08/21/2020

325 REPLY to Response to Motion re 280 Defendant's MOTION in Limine and Memorandum in Support to Exclude Evidence of Alleged Sexual Harassment filed by Defendants Martin Bates, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins, Utah High School Activities Association. (Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 08/21/2020)

08/21/2020

326 REPLY BRIEF re 277 Objections,,, filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins, Utah High School Activities Association. (Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 08/21/2020)

08/24/2020 327 ORDER granting 322 Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 8/24/2020. (lnp) (Entered: 08/24/2020)

08/24/2020

328 TRIAL BRIEF by Defendants Martin Bates, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins, Utah High School Activities Association. (Parry, D.) (Entered: 08/24/2020)

08/24/2020

329 TRIAL BRIEF by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Washburn, D.) (Entered: 08/24/2020)

08/28/2020

330 NOTICE of Intent to Invoke Rule 615 by I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Washburn, D.) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/28/2020

331 NOTICE of TO THE COURT REGARDING DEFENDANTS' EXHIBITS by I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Washburn, D.) (Entered: 08/28/2020)

08/31/2020

332 NOTICE OF HEARING: (Notice generated by HCN chambers) Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/1/2020 at 01:00 PM in Rm 7.300 before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. **Counsel - this hearing will be held IN-PERSON. Please see the court's website for the COVID-19 requirements for entering the building. (mlp) (Entered: 08/31/2020)

08/31/2020

333 RESPONSE re 330 Notice (Other), filed by Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins, Utah High School Activities Association. (Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 08/31/2020)

09/01/2020

334 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Final Pretrial Conference held on 9/1/2020. All parties appearing inperson. The court and parties discussed and determined the bench trial will proceed in-person on the following days: September 8-10; 14-18, 21-25 with possibly a few additional days.

The court and parties discussed 256 Defendants' Motion to Decertify Class, 268 Plaintiffs' Motion for Judicial Notice, 270 Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants from Contesting Judicial Admissions, 271 Plaintiffs' Motion to Limit the Expert Testimony of R. Cuff and B. Jackson, 274 Defendants' Motion to Exclude Testimony of Rebuttal Expert Brent Gordon, 273 Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Establish

UHSAA as a State Actor, 276 Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibits 126 and 127, 291 Plaintiffs' Objection to Authenticity of Defendants' Proposed Exhibits, 277 Defendants' Objections to Authenticity of Plaintiffs' Proposed Exhibits, 281 Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Alleged Sexual Harassment, 330 Notice of Intent to Invoke Rule 615, and 282 Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiffs Undisclosed Witnesses and Documents.
The court issued the following instructions and orders:
1-The court will reserve ruling on 256 Defendants' Motion to Decertify Class until after trial.
2- The court grants 268 Plaintiffs' Motion for Judicial Notice on the understanding that the motion only asks the court to take notice of the fact that the websites refer to high school football as "boys football" but does not ask the court to take notice of the accuracy of that phrase.
3- The court grants 270 Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants from Contesting Judicial Admissions to the extent that Plaintiffs' Motion asks the court to bar Defendants from denying that some of the Defendants have sometimes referred to high school football as "boys football" or classified high school football as a boys sport. To the extent Plaintiffs' seek to bar Defendants from presenting evidence of what their policies governing girls' participation in high school actually are, the motion is denied.
4- The court reserves judgment on 271 Plaintiffs' Motion to Limit the Expert Testimony of R. Cuff and B. Jackson and 274 Defendants' Motion to Exclude Testimony of Rebuttal Expert Brent Gordon. The court will permit the parties to conduct voir dire before each expert begins his testimony, and the court may at that time rule on the Daubert challenge, or it may decide to allow the proposed expert to testify and reserve ruling until after trial.
5- 273 Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Establish UHSAA as a State Actor is denied as moot given that UHSAA has agreed that it is a state actor.
6- The court grants in part and denies in part 276 Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiffs' Trial Exhibits 126 and 127. The court will exclude statements made by coaches, and statements from girls who do not attend schools in the Jordan and Granite Districts. Subject to Plaintiffs offering an appropriate foundation, statements made by girls who attend schools in the Jordan and Granite Districts will be admitted

09/03/2020

only as evidence of the fact the statements were made. On the understanding that Exhibit 127 summarizes only statements made by girls who attend schools in the Jordan District, this exhibit may be admitted under Rule 1006. The Plaintiffs will provide a substitute exhibit that replaces proposed Exhibit 126 and is limited to statements made by girls who attend schools in the Jordan and Granite Districts.
7- With respect to 291 Plaintiffs' Objection to Authenticity of Defendants' Proposed Exhibits and 277 Defendants' Objections to Authenticity of Plaintiff's Proposed Exhibits, the court ruled that it will not entertain objections at trial to the authenticity of a) any exhibit listed by either party, the authenticity of which has not been challenged or b) any exhibit to which a party has withdrawn its challenge. The court will allow the party seeking to admit any exhibit that remains subject to objection the opportunity to attempt to authenticate the exhibit through a witness at trial.
8- The court denies 281 Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Alleged Sexual Harassment. The parties are directed to arrange for an expedited deposition of L.G. that is limited in subject matter to her claims of sexual harassment.
9- The parties shall attempt to resolve the issues raised by 330 Notice of Intent to Invoke Rule 615.
10- The court grants in part and denies in part 282 Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiffs' Undisclosed Witnesses and Documents. Plaintiffs chose to withdraw a number of contested witnesses. The court grants 282 as to Mr. Ruiz, Ms. Cook, and Ms. Goetz. The court denies 282 as to Mr. Jaeger, Exhibit 23, Exhibit 30, Exhibit 31-47, Exhibit 7579, 127, 137-144, and 147. The court will take judicial notice of Exhibit 49.
SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr., on September 2, 2020.
Attorney for Plaintiff: Loren Washburn, Brent Gordon, Tyler Dever, Trinity Jordan, Attorney for Defendant: Rachel Terry, Shane Stroud, Mark VanWagoner, Craig Parry, Michael Lehr. Court Reporter: Teena Green. (Time Start: 1:00, Time End: 4:00, Room: 7.3.)(mlp) (Entered: 09/02/2020)
(Court only)*** Motion terminated 280 Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Alleged Sexual Harassment filed by Rachel Terry, Mark O. Van Wagoner, D. Craig Parry, Attorneys for Jordan School District, Granite School District, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey,

09/04/2020

Martin Bates, and Rick Robins. Signed by Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr., on 9/3/2020. (jcp) (Entered: 09/03/2020)
DOCKET TEXT ORDER Establishing health and safety guidelines for the bench trial in this case:
1.In order to enter the courthouse, you must wear a mask, sanitize your hands, and stay at least 6 feet away from others. Additionally, you must meet the following requirements:
a.You have not, in the past 14 days, tested positive for COVID-19 or suspected that you have had COVID-19
b.You have not, in the past 14 days, had close contact with someone who has tested positive for COVID-19 or is suspected to have had COVID-19
c.You do not unexpectedly have any symptoms associated with COVID-19 including, but not limited to, fever or chills, shortness of breath, cough, or new loss of taste or smell.
These requirements apply to all trial participants as well as any members of the public or media who wish to attend the trial.
2.Counsel is not permitted to approach the witness box or the bench, whether before, during, or after trial. This includes approaching the courtroom deputy, court reporter, or law clerk. Counsel must stay at their tables unless using the podium.
3.Witnesses must wear masks while being escorted to the witness box but will remove their masks while testifying. Sanitizing spray, gloves, and paper towels will be provided for witnesses who wish to clean the area prior to testifying. Witnesses should not attempt to clean the plexiglass, however. Hand sanitizer will also be provided.
4.Counsel will not be permitted to approach witnesses. Counsel may question witnesses from counsel tables or from the podium.
5.Counsel, parties, and witnesses should not touch or attempt to clean the Plexiglas. The plexiglass requires special cloth and cleaner. Using the cloths and cleaner provided to clean other surfaces will damage the plexiglass.
6.Evidence must be presented entirely electronically. Essential physical evidence must be supplemented by photos of the physical evidence that can be displayed. Any physical evidence permitted by a judge will be

handled using gloves. Counsel must be prepared to question witnesses using electronically displayed evidence, rather than paper copies or binders.

7.Counsel must wipe down the microphone and/or podium controls if counsel touches or adjusts them. Counsel must also sanitize their hands before and after using the podium.

8.Water carafes will not be provided. Cases of bottled water will be available in the courtroom for participant use.

9.The court will provide war rooms for the Plaintiffs and for Defendants upon request. Counsel will be permitted to order lunch to be delivered to their rooms. Counsel will also be permitted to bring water into their individual rooms. More information about the location of these rooms will be provided before the trial begins.

10.All participants are instructed to bring any symptoms or illnesses to the courts attention promptly during trial.

11.Counsel, parties, witnesses, and members of the press and public shall maintain appropriate distance from other individuals and follow all signs and verbal instructions from courtroom personnel regarding social distancing and health safeguards.

12.Counsel, witnesses, and parties shall not move or rearrange chairs, tables, or other objects in the courtroom without permission from courtroom personnel.

SO ORDERED, Signed by Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr., on 9/4/2020. (jcp) (Entered: 09/04/2020)

09/07/2020

335 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL of Brent Gordon filed by Brent Gordon on behalf of I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons (Gordon, Brent) (Entered: 09/07/2020)

09/08/2020

336 NOTICE OF HEARING: (Notice generated by HCN chambers) Bench Trial set for 9/8/2020 through 9/25/2020 at 10:00 AM in Rm 7.300 before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. (mlp) (Entered: 09/08/2020)

09/08/2020 337 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr.

Bench Trial held on 9/8/2020. All parties present for parties. Court discussed procedural matters as well as covid-19 protocol. Opening statements made by Loren Washburn, Rachel Terry and Craig Parry.

Mr. Washburn called Brad Sorenson. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Mr. Washburn offered exhibits 64, 132, 1, 128, 93. No objection. Court received. Exhibit 145 offered and court took judicial notice. Exhibits 126, 127, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100 and 103 offered and provisionally accepted.
Court adjourned until 9/9/2020 at 10:00 a.m.
Attorney for Plaintiff: Loren Washburn, Tyler Dever, Trinity Jordan, Attorney for Defendant: Rachel Terry, Shane Stroud, Mark VanWagoner, Craig Parry, Michael Lehr. Court Reporter: Teena Green.(Time Start: 10:00, Time End: 5:00, Room 7.300.)(mlp) (Entered: 09/09/2020)
09/09/2020 338 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr.
Bench Trial held on 9/9/2020. Counsel are present for all parties. Witness Brad Sorenson, who is still under oath, resumes the stand. Mr. Washburn offered exhibits 122, 434. No objection. Court received. Witness excused.
Mr. Jordan calls Baylee Simmons. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.
Mr. Washburn calls Rob Cuff. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Exhibit 12, 23, 28, 673, 24, 25, 26, 14- 22, 85, 662, 670 offered. No objection. Court received.
Court adjourned until 9/10/2020 at 10:00 am.
Attorney for Plaintiff: Loren Washburn, Tyler Dever, Trinity Jordan, Attorney for Defendant: Rachel Terry, Shane Stroud, Mark VanWagoner, Craig Parry, Michael Lehr. Court Reporter: Teena Green.(Time Start: 10:00, Time End: 4:26, Room 7.300.)(mlp) (Entered: 09/10/2020)
09/10/2020 339 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Bench Trial held on 9/10/2020. Counsel are present for all parties.
Witness Rob Cuff, who is still under oath, resumes the stand. Mr. Washburn offered exhibits 55, 56, 11. No objection. Court received. Witness excused.
Ms. Dever calls Lauren Dixon. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.

Mr. Jordan calls Jeff Cluff. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.
Mr. Washburn calls Doug Larson. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Mr. Washburn offered exhibits 2, 413 (provisionally accepted), 177, 178, 179, 60, 61, 62. Court received. Witness excused.
Court adjourned at 4:20 pm until 9/14/2020 at 10:00 a.m.
Attorney for Plaintiff: Loren Washburn, Tyler Dever, Trinity Jordan. Attorney for Defendant: Rachel Terry, Shane Stroud, Mark VanWagoner, Craig Parry, Michael Lehr. Court Reporter: Teena Green. (Time Start: 10:00, Time End: 4:30, Room 7.300.)(mlp) (Entered: 09/10/2020)
09/14/2020 340 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Bench Trial held on 9/14/2020. Counsel present for all parties.
Mr. Washburn calls Donna Lopiano who appears via video conference. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Mr. Washburn offered exhibit 13 and discussed. Court received. Demonstrative exhibits 131.3, 131.4, 131.6 and 131.9 discussed. Witness excused.
Mr. Jordan calls Dalainee Robinson. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.
Mr. Washburn calls Quin Monson. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Mr. Washburn offered exhibits 130-134. No objection. Court received.
Court adjourned at 4:30 pm until 9/15/2020 at 10:00 a.m.
Attorney for Plaintiff: Loren Washburn, Tyler Dever, Trinity Jordan, Attorney for Defendant: Rachel Terry, Shane Stroud, Mark VanWagoner, Craig Parry, Michael Lehr. Court Reporter: Teena Green. (Time Start: 10:00, Time End: 4:30, Room 7.300.)(mlp) (Entered: 09/14/2020)
09/15/2020 341 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Bench Trial held on 9/15/2020. Counsel are present for all parties.
Witness Quin Monson, who is still under oath, resumes the stand. Testimony given. Witness excused.
Mr. Jordan calls Carson Mund. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.

Mr. Jordan calls Jason Dixon. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.
Ms. Dever calls James Briscoe. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Ms. Dever offered exhibits 57, 59. No objections. Court received. Witness excused.
Mr. Washburn calls Laura Goetz. Witness is represented by Ms. Tara Isaacson. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Mr. Washburn offered exhibits 139, 142. Court received. Mr. Washburn offered exhibits 140, 141, 144, 143. Court received. Ms. Isaacson moved that the courtroom be sealed for a short portion of testimony. Court asked questions and granted the motion. Witness excused.
Mr. Washburn calls David Van de Veegaete. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Mr. Washburn offered exhibits 123, 329, 325, 326, 327, 328, 366. No objections. Court received. Witness excused.
Court adjourned at 4:15 pm until 9/16/2020 at 10:00 a.m.
Attorney for Plaintiff: Loren Washburn, Tyler Dever, Trinity Jordan, Attorney for Defendant: Rachel Terry, Shane Stroud, Mark VanWagoner, Craig Parry, Michael Lehr. Court Reporter: Teena Green. (Time Start: 10:00, Time End: 4:15, Room 7.300.)(mlp) (Entered: 09/15/2020)
09/16/2020 342 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Bench Trial held on 9/16/2020. Counsel are present for all parties. Court addressed briefing logistics and closing argument dates.
Mr. Jordan calls Brent Winch. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.
Mr. Jordan calls Martin Bates. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.
Mr. Jordan calls Anthony Godfrey. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.
Ms. Dever calls Isabele Calchera. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.
Court further discussed post trial briefing. Court set November 2, 2020 as briefs due date and closing arguments set for November 12, 2020 at 10:00 am.

Ms. Dever calls Isabella Nogales. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.

Ms. Dever calls Madelyn Calchera. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.

Ms. Dever calls Barbara Calchera. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.

Mr. Washburn calls Brent Gordon. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Mr. Washburn offered exhibits 537-560 (they will file redacted versions). No Objections. Court received redacted versions.

Court adjourned at 4:35 pm until 9/17/2020 at 10:00 am.

Attorney for Plaintiff: Loren Washburn, Tyler Dever, Trinity Jordan, Attorney for Defendant: Rachel Terry, Shane Stroud, Mark VanWagoner, Craig Parry, Michael Lehr. Court Reporter: Teena Green. (Time Start: 10:00, Time End: 4:35, Room: 7.300.)(mlp) (Entered: 09/16/2020)

09/17/2020

343 Redacted MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Memorandum in Support re Equal Protection Claim filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins, Utah High School Activities Association. (Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 09/17/2020)

09/17/2020

344 Redacted MOTION to Decertify Class (Renewed) and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins, Utah High School Activities Association. Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 09/17/2020)

09/17/2020 345 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Bench Trial held on 9/17/2020. Counsel are present for all parties.

Witness Brent Gordon, who is still under oath, resumes the stand. Testimony given. Mr. Washburn offered exhibits 126, 127. Objections made. Court received. Mr. Washburn offered exhibits 24, 66, 67, 68, 146. No objections. Court received. Mr. Parry offered exhibit 135. No objections. Court received. Witness excused.

Mr. Washburn calls Samatha Gordon. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.

Plaintiffs rested their case. Discussion and argument begun on three motions brought by defendants; additional discussion and argument will be heard on the motions by the court tomorrow.

Court adjourned at 4:40 pm until 9/18/2020 at 10:00 am.

Attorney for Plaintiff: Loren Washburn, Tyler Dever, Trinity Jordan, Attorney for Defendant: Rachel Terry, Shane Stroud, Mark VanWagoner, Craig Parry, Michael Lehr. Court Reporter: Teena Green. (Time Start: 10:00, Time End: 4:30, Room 7.300.)(mlp) (Entered: 09/18/2020)

09/18/2020

346 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Bench Trial held on 9/18/2020. Counsel are present for all parties. Court resumed discussion and argument on motions. Court reserves ruling on all three motions.

Ms. Parry calls David Vande Veegaete. Witness sworn, testimony given. Ms. Parry offers exhibits 338, 340, 351, 357, 358, 362, 363, 365, 385, 331, 333, 339, 387, 382, 341, 352, 354, 405, 407, 410, 411, 412, 448, 450, 452, 453, 472, 463, 333, 385. No objections. Court received. Witness excused.

Court adjourned at 4:45 pm until 9/21/2020 at 10:00 am.

Attorney for Plaintiff: Loren Washburn, Tyler Dever, Trinity Jordan, Attorney for Defendant: Rachel Terry, Shane Stroud, Mark VanWagoner, Craig Parry, Michael Lehr. Court Reporter: Teena Green. (Time Start: 10:00, Time End: 5:00, Room 7.300.)(mlp) (Entered: 09/18/2020)

09/18/2020

347 Supplemental BRIEF re 343 Redacted MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Memorandum in Support re Equal Protection Claim (Monell's Applicability to UHSAA) filed by Defendant Utah High School Activities Association. (Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 09/18/2020)

09/21/2020 348 Motions No Longer Referred: Defendants' Renewed MOTION to Decertify Class 344 will be addressed by the District Court. (Entered: 09/21/2020)

09/21/2020

349 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Bench Trial held on 9/21/2020. Counsel are present for all parties. Court reminded all parties of courthouse covid protocol. Plaintiff stipulates to the admission of the following exhibits: 27, 28, 53, 54, 145, 367, 375, 462, 671, 672. Court received.

Ms. Terry calls Eric Kjar. Witness sworn, testimony given. Mr. Jordan offers exhibits 185 and 186 for rebuttal and impeachment. Objections heard. Court received provisionally. Witness excused.
Mr. Parry calls Jan Whittaker. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.
Mr. Stroud calls Glen Varga. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.
Mr. Stroud calls Curtis Hagen. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.
Court adjourned at 4:15 pm until 9/22/2020 at 10:00 am.
Attorney for Plaintiff: Loren Washburn, Tyler Dever, Trinity Jordan, Attorney for Defendant: Rachel Terry, Shane Stroud, Mark VanWagoner, Craig Parry, Michael Lehr. Court Reporter: Teena Green. (Time Start: 10:00, Time End: 4:30, Room 7.300.)(mlp) (Entered: 09/21/2020)
09/22/2020 350 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Bench Trial held on 9/22/2020. Counsel are present for all parties.
Ms. Terry calls Mikel Meifu. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.
Mr. Shroud calls Matt Rickards. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Mr. Jordan offers exhibit 188 for rebuttal and impeachment. Court received. Witness excused.
Mr. Shroud calls Emily Williams. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.
Mr. Shroud calls John Olson. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.
Mr. Shroud calls Justin Matagi. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.
Mr. Shroud calls Sara Little. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.
Ms. Terry calls Chris Shipman. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.

Court adjourned at 3:30 pm until 9/23/2020 at 10:00 am.
Attorney for Plaintiff: Loren Washburn, Tyler Dever, Trinity Jordan, Attorney for Defendant: Rachel Terry, Shane Stroud, Mark VanWagoner, Craig Parry, Michael Lehr. Court Reporter: Teena Green. (Time Start: 10:00, Time End: 3:30, Room 7.300.)(mlp) Modified on 9/22/2020 (mlp). (Entered: 09/22/2020)
09/23/2020 351 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Bench Trial held on 9/23/2020. Counsel are present for all parties.
Mr. Shroud calls Aaron Whitehead. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.
Ms. Terry calls Gary Erickson. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.
Mr. Shroud calls Morgan Brown. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.
Mr. Shroud calls Pam Olsen. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.
Mr. Parry calls Jeff Cluff. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Mr. Jordan offers exhibit 189 for rebuttal and impeachment. Court received. Mr. Jordan offers exhibits 190, 191 and 192 for rebuttal and impeachment. Court heard objections and received for rebuttal only. Witness excused.
Court adjourned at 2:30 pm until 9/24/2020 at 10:00 am.
Attorney for Plaintiff: Loren Washburn, Tyler Dever, Trinity Jordan, Attorney for Defendant: Rachel Terry, Shane Stroud, Mark VanWagoner, Craig Parry, Michael Lehr. Court Reporter: Teena Green. (Time Start: 10:00, Time End: 2:30, Room 7.300.)(mlp) (Entered: 09/23/2020)
09/24/2020 352 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Bench Trial held on 9/24/2020. Counsel are present for all parties.
Ms. Terry calls James Birch appearing via zoom. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.
Ms. Terry calls Jody Morgan. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Ms. Terry moves to admit this witness as an expert. No objection. Witness

excused.

Ms. Terry calls Jenicee Jacobson via zoom. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.

Mr. Van Wagoner calls Brenan Jackson. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Mr. Van Wagoner moves to admit this witness as an expert. No objection. Mr. Jordan offers exhibit 30. No objection. Court received. Witness excused.

Ms. Terry calls Robert Dowdle. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Ms. Terry moves to admit this witness as an expert. No objection. Ms. Terry offers exhibits 679 and 301. No objection. Court received. Witness to return tomorrow.

Court adjourned at 5:00 pm until 9/25/2020 at 10:00 am.

Attorney for Plaintiff: Loren Washburn, Tyler Dever, Trinity Jordan, Attorney for Defendant: Rachel Terry, Shane Stroud, Mark VanWagoner, Craig Parry, Michael Lehr. Court Reporter: Teena Green. (Time Start: 10:00, Time End: 5:00, Room 7.300.)(mlp) (Entered: 09/24/2020)

09/25/2020

353 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Bench Trial completed on 9/25/2020. Counsel are present for all parties. Court discussed closing arguments and reset for Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 10:00 am. Briefing due Wednesday, October 21, 2020.

Witness Robert Dowdle, who is still under oath, resumes the stand. Mr. Washburn offers exhibits 196, 197 and 198 as rebuttal. Provisionally accepted. Witness excused.

Ms. Terry calls Anthony Godfrey. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Ms. Terry offers exhibits 437, 680 and 681. No objection. Court received. Witness excused.

Mr. Van Wagoner calls Rob Cuff. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.

Defense rests.

Mr. Jordan calls Brent Gordon. Witness is sworn, testimony given. Witness excused.

Parties rest.

Court adjourned at 4:00 pm.

Attorney for Plaintiff: Loren Washburn, Tyler Dever, Trinity Jordan, Attorney for Defendant: Rachel Terry, Shane Stroud, Mark VanWagoner, Craig Parry, Michael Lehr. Court Reporter: Teena Green. (Time Start: 10:00, Time End: 4:00, Room 7.300.)(mlp) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

09/25/2020

354 DOCKET TEXT ORDER.Section E of 246 Trial Order is modified as follows: no later than October 21, 2020, each party shall file an amended trial brief adding citations from the trial record that support each of the factual propositions that the party believes was established at trial. Each partys amended trial brief shall be accompanied by proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Each proposed finding of fact shall be accompanied by one or more citations that support the proposed finding from the trial record or from materials subject to judicial notice. Each proposed conclusion of law shall be accompanied by one or more citations of legal authorities that support the proposed conclusion. No later than October 21, 2020, the parties may also submit supplemental briefs addressing 256 Defendants Motion to Decertify Class, 274 Defendants Motion to Exclude Testimony of Rebuttal Expert Brent Gordon, and 271 Plaintiffs Motion to Limit the Testimony of R. Cuff and B. Jackson. Closing argument will be held on October 28, 2020 at 10am. Signed by Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr., on 9/25/2020. (jcp) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

10/05/2020

355 MOTION for Leave to File Overlength Motion to Reconsider and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Granite School District, Jordan School District. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 10/05/2020)

10/07/2020 356 ORDER granting 355 Motion for Leave to File Overlength Motion to Reconsider. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 10/7/2020. (lnp) (Entered: 10/07/2020)

10/07/2020

357 MOTION re 44 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,, Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,,,, Motion Hearing,,, and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Granite School District, Jordan School District. Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 10/07/2020)

10/08/2020 358 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial - Day One held on 9/8/2020

before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Court Reporter/Transcriber Teena Green, RPR, CRR, CBC. Telephone number 801-910-4092.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 business days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the parties intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. To redact additional information a Motion to Redact must be filed. The policy and forms are located on the court's website at www.utd.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available on the date set forth below.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/29/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/9/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/6/2021. (lnp) Modified by removing restricted text on 1/7/2021 (nl). (Entered: 10/08/2020)

10/08/2020

359 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial - Day Two held on 9/9/2020 before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Court Reporter/Transcriber Teena Green, RPR, CRR, CBC. Telephone number 801-910-4092.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 business days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the parties intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. To redact additional information a Motion to Redact must be filed. The policy and forms are located on the court's website at www.utd.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available on the date set forth below.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/29/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/9/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/6/2021. (lnp) Modified by removing restricted text on 1/7/2021 (nl). (Entered: 10/08/2020)

10/08/2020

360 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial - Day Three held on 9/10/2020 before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Court Reporter/Transcriber Teena Green, RPR, CRR, CBC. Telephone number 801-910-4092.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 business days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the parties intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. To redact additional information a Motion to Redact must be filed. The policy and forms are located on the court's website at www.utd.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available on the date set forth below.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/29/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/9/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/6/2021. (lnp) Modified by removing restricted text on 1/7/2021 (nl). (Entered: 10/08/2020)

10/08/2020

361 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial - Day Four held on 9/14/2020 before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Court Reporter/Transcriber Teena Green, RPR, CRR, CBC. Telephone number 801-910-4092.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 business days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the parties intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. To redact additional information a Motion to Redact must be filed. The policy and forms are located on the court's website at www.utd.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available on the date set forth below.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/29/2020. Redacted Transcript

Deadline set for 11/9/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/6/2021. (lnp) Modified by removing restricted text on 1/7/2021 (nl). (Entered: 10/08/2020)

10/08/2020

362 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial - Day Five held on 9/15/2020 before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Court Reporter/Transcriber Teena Green, RPR, CRR, CBC. Telephone number 801-910-4092.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 business days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the parties intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. To redact additional information a Motion to Redact must be filed. The policy and forms are located on the court's website at www.utd.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available on the date set forth below.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/29/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/9/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/6/2021. (lnp) Modified by removing restricted text on 1/7/2021 (nl). (Entered: 10/08/2020)

10/08/2020

363 **SEALED DOCUMENT** NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial - Day Five (Pages 1025-1037) are SEALED held on 9/15/2020 before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Court Reporter/Transcriber Teena Green, RPR, CRR, CBC. Telephone number 801-910-4092. (lnp) (Entered: 10/08/2020)

10/08/2020

364 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial - Day Six held on 9/16/2020 before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Court Reporter/Transcriber Teena Green. RPR, CRR, CBC, Telephone number 801-910-4092.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 business days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the parties intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. To redact additional information a Motion to Redact must be filed. The policy and forms are located on the court's

website at www.utd.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available on the date set forth below.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/29/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/9/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/6/2021. (lnp) Modified by removing restricted text on 1/7/2021 (nl). (Entered: 10/08/2020)

10/08/2020

365 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial - Day Seven held on 9/17/2020 before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Court Reporter/Transcriber Teena Green, RPR, CRR, CBC. Telephone number 801-910-4092.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 business days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the parties intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. To redact additional information a Motion to Redact must be filed. The policy and forms are located on the court's website at www.utd.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available on the date set forth below.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/29/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/9/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/6/2021. (lnp) Modified by removing restricted text on 1/7/2021 (nl). (Entered: 10/08/2020)

10/08/2020

366 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial - Day Eight held on 9/18/2020 before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Court Reporter/Transcriber Teena Green, RPR, CRR, CBC. Telephone number 801-910-4092.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 business days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by

filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the parties intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. To redact additional information a Motion to Redact must be filed. The policy and forms are located on the court's website at www.utd.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available on the date set forth below.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/29/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/9/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/6/2021. (lnp) Modified by removing restricted text on 1/7/2021 (nl). (Entered: 10/08/2020)

10/08/2020

367 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial - Day Nine held on 9/21/2020 before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Court Reporter/Transcriber Teena Green, RPR, CRR, CBC. Telephone number 801-910-4092.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 business days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the parties intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. To redact additional information a Motion to Redact must be filed. The policy and forms are located on the court's website at www.utd.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available on the date set forth below.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/29/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/9/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/6/2021. (lnp) Modified by removing restricted text on 1/7/2021 (nl). (Entered: 10/08/2020)

10/08/2020

368 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial - Day Ten held on 9/22/2020 before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Court Reporter/Transcriber Teena Green, RPR, CRR, CBC. Telephone number 801-910-4092.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 business days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the parties intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. To redact additional information a Motion to Redact must be filed. The policy and forms are located on the court's website at www.utd.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available on the date set forth below.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/29/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/9/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/6/2021. (lnp) Modified by removing restricted text on 1/7/2021 (nl). (Entered: 10/08/2020)

10/08/2020

369 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial - Day Eleven held on 9/23/2020 before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Court Reporter/Transcriber Teena Green, RPR, CRR, CBC. Telephone number 801-910-4092.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 business days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the parties intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. To redact additional information a Motion to Redact must be filed. The policy and forms are located on the court's website at www.utd.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available on the date set forth below.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/29/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/9/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/6/2021. (lnp) Modified by removing restricted text on 1/7/2021 (nl). (Entered: 10/08/2020)

10/08/2020

370 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial - Day Twelve held on 9/24/2020 before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Court Reporter/Transcriber Teena Green, RPR, CRR, CBC. Telephone number 801-910-4092.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 business days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the parties intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. To redact additional information a Motion to Redact must be filed. The policy and forms are located on the court's website at www.utd.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available on the date set forth below.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/29/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/9/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/6/2021. (lnp) Modified by removing restricted text on 1/7/2021 (nl). (Entered: 10/08/2020)

10/08/2020

371 **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Bench Trial - Day Thirteen held on 9/25/2020 before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Court Reporter/Transcriber Teena Green, RPR, CRR, CBC. Telephone number 801-910-4092.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 business days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the parties intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. To redact additional information a Motion to Redact must be filed. The policy and forms are located on the court's website at www.utd.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available on the date set forth below.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/29/2020. Redacted Transcript

Deadline set for 11/9/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/6/2021. (lnp) Modified by removing restricted text on 1/7/2021 (nl). (Entered: 10/08/2020)

10/12/2020 373 Motions No Longer Referred: 357 Jordan and Granite School Districts' Rule 54(b) Motion to Reconsider February 2018 Order. (Entered: 10/12/2020)

10/20/2020

374 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Reconsider filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Dustin B. Pead.(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 10/20/2020)

10/20/2020

375 ORDER granting 374 Motion for Permission to File Over-Page Opposition to Motion to Reconsider. Plaintiffs are given the leave requested to file an additional 12 pages. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 10/20/2020. (lnp) (Entered: 10/20/2020)

10/20/2020

376 NOTICE OF HEARING: (Notice generated by HCN chambers) Closing Arguments set for 10/28/2020 at 10:00 AM before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. (Hearing was previously set. Notice is being issued for administrative/calendaring purposes). (mlp) (Entered: 10/20/2020)

10/21/2020

377 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 357 MOTION re 44 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,, Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,,,, Motion Hearing,,, and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A2.13.2018 Transcript, # 2 Exhibit B- 7.17.2018 Transcript)(Washburn, D.) (Entered: 10/21/2020)

10/21/2020

378 Proposed Findings of Fact by Martin Bates, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins, Utah High School Activities Association. (Parry, D.) (Entered: 10/21/2020)

10/21/2020 379 TRIAL BRIEF Post-Trial Brief by Defendant Utah High School Activities Association. (Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 10/21/2020)

10/21/2020

380 Supplemental MEMORANDUM in Support re 256 MOTION to Decertify Class and Memorandum in Support , 344 Redacted MOTION to Decertify Class (Renewed) and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan

School District, Rick L. Robins, Utah High School Activities Association. (Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 10/21/2020)

10/21/2020

381 Supplemental RESPONSE to Motion re 271 MOTION in Limine to Limit the Expert Testimony of R. Cuff and B. Jackson, 274 MOTION to Exclude Rebuttal Expert Brent Gordon and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Martin Bates, James Briscoe, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Patrice Johnson, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins, Utah High School Activities Association. (Lehr, Michael) (Entered: 10/21/2020)

10/21/2020 382 TRIAL BRIEF Post-Trial Brief by Plaintiffs I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Washburn, D.) (Entered: 10/21/2020)

10/21/2020

383 TRIAL BRIEF by Defendants Martin Bates, Canyons School District, Anthony Godfrey, Granite School District, Jordan School District, Rick L. Robins. (Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 10/21/2020)

10/21/2020 384 Proposed Findings of Fact by I. C., Barbara Calchera, Jason Dixon, Brent Gordon, Manuel Nogales, Bret Robison, Lisa Simmons. (Washburn, D.) (Entered: 10/21/2020)

10/27/2020

385 REPLY to Response to Motion re 357 MOTION re 44 Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,, Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,,,, Motion Hearing,,, and Memorandum in Support filed by Defendants Granite School District, Jordan School District. (Terry, Rachel) (Entered: 10/27/2020)

10/28/2020

386 NOTICE OF HEARING: (Notice generated by HCN chambers) Closing Arguments set for 10/28/2020 at 10:00 AM before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. **Hearing will be held via ZOOM. Link has been emailed to counsel. Members of the public or media who are interested in viewing this hearing may contact chambers at utdecf_nielson@utd.uscourts.gov. (mlp) (Entered: 10/28/2020)

10/28/2020 387 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Closing Arguments held on 10/28/2020. Court heard argument from all parties. Case has been submitted.

Attorney for Plaintiff: Loren Washburn, Tyler Dever, Trinity Jordan, Attorney for Defendant: Rachel Terry, Shane Stroud, Mark VanWagoner, Craig Parry. Court Reporter: Teena Green. (Time Start: 10:00, Time End: 6:15, Room: zoom video.)(mlp) (Entered: 10/29/2020)

11/19/2020 388 Court Trial Exhibit List (mlp) (Entered: 11/19/2020)

11/24/2020 389 Plaintiff's Trial Witness List. (mlp) (Entered: 11/24/2020) 11/24/2020 390 Defendant's Trial Witness List. (mlp) (Entered: 11/24/2020)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

01/30/2021 09:24:17

CRClearinghouse Client Code: Feng

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:17-cv-00677HCN-DBP

30

Cost:

3.00

 
 S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2017 WL 2773695...
2017 WL 2773695 (D.Utah) (Trial Pleading) United States District Court, D. Utah.
S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon; L.D., by and through her general guardian, Jason Dixon; B.S., by and through her general guardian, Lisa Simmons; M.C., by and through her general guardian, Barbara Calchera; D.R., by and through her general guardian, Bret Robison; I.N., by and through her general
guardian, Manuel Nogales, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situtation, Plaintiffs, v.
JORDAN SCHOOL DISTRICT, Granite School District, Canyons School District, Utah High School Activities Association, Inc., Patrice Johnson, Martin Bates, and James Briscoe, Defendants.
No. 2:17-cv-00677-BCW. June 23, 2017.
Complaint
Mark L. Smith (Utah Bar #11367), Michelle Correll (California Bar # 229488), D. Loren Washburn (Utah Bar #10993), Jacob L. Fonnesbeck (Utah Bar #14176), Smith Correll, LLP, 50 West Broadway, Suite 1010, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101, Phone: (801) 436-5550, Fax: (877) 730-5910, msmith@smithcorrell.com, mcorrell@smithcorrell.com, lwashburn@smithcorrell.com, jfonnesbeck@smithcorrell.com.
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of a class of current and prospective female students to remedy the unlawful sex discrimination of Jordan School District, Granite School District, and Canyons School District (“Districts”); district employees Patrice Johnson, Martin Bates, and James Briscoe district employees (the “individual District Defendants”); and Utah High School Activities Association (“UHSAA”) (collectively all defendants are referred to hereinafter as “Defendants”) against present and future female student athletes who attend or who will attend the high schools in the Districts who are denied the opportunity to participate in sports not offered by Defendants on equal terms as male students.
2. Defendants discriminate on the basis of sex because, among other things, (1) they provide male students with the opportunity to play on boys football teams but do not offer female students the opportunity to play on girls football teams students and (2) their conduct results in male students having greater opportunity and greater rates of participation in sports than female students. Defendants’ unlawful sex discrimination violates female students’ rights under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq., and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto, 34 C.F.R. Part 106 (collectively, “Title IX”). In addition, Defendants’ unlawful sex discrimination violates the United States Constitution as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
3. Defendants have unlawfully failed to provide female students the opportunity to play football on girls football teams while providing the opportunity for male students to play football on boys football teams.
4. Defendants have unlawfully failed to provide female student athletes equal treatment and benefits as compared to male athletes.
5. Defendants have intentionally discriminated against female student athletes by funding, authorizing, constructing, renovating, and maintaining football facilities, fields and stadiums intended for male football players who play on boys football teams, while at the same time refusing to provide female students the opportunity to play on officially sponsored girls football teams using the same facilities, fields and stadiums as boys football teams.
1

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2017 WL 2773695...
6. Districts and the individual District Defendants have discriminated against the female high school students who attend high schools in the Districts by failing to provide them with an equal opportunity to participate in high school athletic programs. Notwithstanding the significant number of female students who have the interests and ability to participate in athletics, the Districts and the individual District Defendants have failed to offer the female students at their high schools athletic opportunities proportionate to their enrollment numbers. As a result, female students have been unable to participate in team sports, have been deterred from participating, and have been excluded from the Districts’ high school athletic programs.
7. Districts cannot demonstrate that their programs nevertheless comply with Title IX despite the failure to provide proportionate numbers of athletic opportunities to female students at their high schools. Districts do not have a history and continuing practice of expanding their athletic programs in response to the developing interests and abilities of female students. In fact, the UHSAA, in which each of the high schools in the Districts are members, has failed to sanction a new high school sport for girls in nearly thirty years. While the UHSAA has recently sanctioned lacrosse in the coming years, the decision will not remedy the disparity in participation opportunities.
8. Accordingly, the failure to provide female students with an equal opportunity to participate in athletics at high schools in the Districts is intentional and has occurred without justification or defense by the Districts and in total disregard for the female students who have the interest and ability to participate in sports.
9. Defendants’ purposeful differential treatment of female students at high schools within the Districts reveals an utter disregard for laws protecting against such invidious sex discrimination and constitutes intentional discrimination.
10. Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and file this action to stop Defendants from discriminating against them and all others similarly situated by offering girls high school football teams and other girls high school sports necessary to provide equal participation opportunities to female students as well as equal treatment and benefits as required by Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
11. Plaintiffs seek monetary and compensatory damages for Defendants’ violation of Title IX and for violation of their constitutional rights.
12. Plaintiffs have been required to retain attorneys to prosecute this action. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their reasonable attorneys fees for all claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
Proposed Class Action
Plaintiffs are female students who file this action individually and on behalf of a class of all similarly situated female students and hereby allege and complain as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
13. Plaintiffs bring this suit under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and its implementing and interpreting regulations and under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ federal law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3) and 1343(a)(4).
14. Declaratory and other relief is authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 28 U.S.C. § 2202 for the purpose of determining a question of factual controversy that exists between the parties. A declaration of the correct interpretation of the legal requirements described in this complaint is necessary and appropriate to determine the respective rights and duties of the parties to this action.
2

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2017 WL 2773695...
15. Venue is proper in the District of Utah pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District. All Plaintiffs and Defendants reside in this District and all of the illegal acts of the individual Defendants described herein occurred in the District.
PARTIES -- PLAINTIFFS
16. Plaintiff, Brent Gordon, is a Utah resident who is the natural father and general guardian of S.G., a minor. S.G. is eligible to play high school sports for Herriman High School in the Jordan School District. Defendants have discriminated against S.G. on the basis of her sex by denying her equal athletic opportunities and equal treatment and benefits and will be irreparably harmed if Defendants are not restrained from continuing to discriminate against her based on her sex.
17. Plaintiff, Jason Dixon, is a Utah resident and the natural father and general guardian of L.D., a minor. L.D. is eligible to play high school sports for Copper Hills High School in the Jordan School District. Defendants have discriminated against L.D. on the basis of her sex by denying her equal athletic opportunities and equal treatment and benefits and will be irreparably harmed if Defendants are not restrained from continuing to discriminate against her based on her sex.
18. Plaintiff, Lisa Simmons, is a Utah resident and the natural mother and general guardian of B.S., a minor. B.S. is eligible to play high school sports for Riverton High School in the Jordan School District. Defendants have discriminated against B.S. on the basis of her sex by denying her equal athletic opportunities and equal treatment and benefits and will be irreparably harmed if Defendants are not restrained from continuing to discriminate against her based on her sex.
19. Plaintiff, Barbara Calchera, is a Utah resident and the natural mother and general guardian of M.C., a minor. M.C. is eligible to play high school sports for Hillcrest High School in the Canyons School District. Defendants have discriminated against M.C. on the basis of her sex by denying her equal athletic opportunities and equal treatment and benefits and will be irreparably harmed if Defendants are not restrained from continuing to discriminate against her based on her sex.
20. Plaintiff, Bret Robison, is a Utah resident and the natural father and general guardian of D.R., a minor. D.R. is eligible to play high school sports for Kearns High School in the Granite School District. Defendants have discriminated against D.R. on the basis of her sex by denying her equal athletic opportunities and equal treatment and benefits and will be irreparably harmed if Defendants are not restrained from continuing to discriminate against her based on her sex.
21. Plaintiff, Manuel Nogales, is a Utah resident and the natural father and general guardian of I.N., a minor. I.N. is eligible to play high school sports for Granger High School in the Granite School District. Defendants have discriminated against I.N. on the basis of her sex by denying her equal athletic opportunities and equal treatment and benefits and will be irreparably harmed if Defendants are not restrained from continuing to discriminate against her based on her sex.
PARTIES -- DEFENDANTS
22. Defendant Jordan School District is a Utah public school district, located within the jurisdiction of this court. The Jordan School District is a state actor subject to the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
23. The Jordan School District receives federal funding so its programs and activities are governed by the requirements of Title IX pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1687.
24. The Jordan School District is authorized to operate, and does operate, Herriman High School, Riverton High School, Bingham High School, West Jordan High School, and Copper Hills High School (“Jordan School District High Schools”), and is responsible for the conduct of each high school in the district.
3

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2017 WL 2773695...
25. Defendant Granite School District is a Utah public school district, located within the jurisdiction of this court. The Granite School District is a state actor subject to the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
26. The Granite School District receives federal funding so its programs and activities are governed by the requirements of Title IX pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1687.
27. The Granite School District is authorized to operate, and does operate, Cottonwood High School, Cyprus High School, Granger High School, Hunter High School, Kearns High School, Olympus High School, Skyline High School, and Taylorsville High School (“Granite School District High Schools”), and is responsible for the conduct of each high school in the district.
28. Defendant Canyons School District is a Utah public school district located within the jurisdiction of this court. The Canyons School District is a state actor subject to the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
29. The Canyons School District receives federal funding so its programs and activities are governed by the requirements of Title IX pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1687.
30. The Canyons School District is authorized to operate, and does operate, Alta High School, Brighton High School, Corner Canyon High School, Hillcrest High School, and Jordan High School (“Canyons School District High Schools”), and is responsible for the conduct of each high school in the district.
31. Defendant Patrice Johnson (“Johnson”) is the Superintendent of the Jordan School District. Johnson has authority and control over the high schools in the Jordan School District, including their policies, practices, procedures, facilities, maintenance, programs, activities, services, and employees in the district’s high schools’ athletic departments. Johnson is responsible for ensuring that the high schools in the Jordan School District comply with anti-discrimination laws. Johnson is a resident of Utah. Johnson is sued in her official capacity.
32. Defendant Martin Bates (“Bates”) is the Superintendent of the Granite School District. Bates has authority and control over the high schools in the Granite School District, including their policies, practices, procedures, facilities, maintenance, programs, activities, services, and employees in the district’s high schools’ athletic departments. Bates is responsible for ensuring that the high schools in the Granite School District comply with anti-discrimination laws. Bates is a resident of Utah. Bates is sued in his official capacity.
33. Defendant James Briscoe (“Briscoe”) is the Superintendent of the Canyons School District. Briscoe has authority and control over the high schools in the Canyons School District, including their policies, practices, procedures, facilities, maintenance, programs, activities, services, and employees in the district’s high schools’ athletic departments. Briscoe is responsible for ensuring that the high schools in the Canyons School District comply with anti-discrimination laws. Briscoe is a resident of Utah. Briscoe is sued in his official capacity.
34. Utah High School Activities Association (“UHSAA”) is a state actor subject to the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
35. UHSAA, along with input from the Utah State Board of Education and the 115 public schools that are members of the UHSAA, regulates interscholastic sport among Utah’s public, charter, and private high schools.
36. UHSAA and the Utah State Board of Education, state school districts, and state high schools, are significantly entwined as follows: a. The UHSAA Handbook includes a joint statement from UHSAA and the Utah State Board of Education regarding the purpose of extracurricular activities in Utah schools and set forth general guidelines and standards for member schools.
4

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2017 WL 2773695...
1. The standards outline when activities should take place and require that head coaches hold a teaching license or complete training programs. 2. The standards require administrators, coaches, and participants to adhere to standards set forth by the Utah legislature in Utah Code Ann. § 53A-11-908. 3. The guidelines are directed to “local boards of education, superintendents, and school principals.” 4. The guidelines govern when public school officials may travel and schedule events. 5. The guidelines govern curriculum of physical education classes in public high schools. b. The UHSAA Constitution is endorsed by the State of Utah. c. Membership in the UHSAA is open to any Utah high school. d. Voting members of the UHSAA Board of Trustees are limited to individuals who are elected school board members, school district superintendents, high school principals, members of the Utah State Board of Education, charter school representatives and private school representatives. e. During the 2015-16 school year there were 146 member schools of the UHSAA, of which 115 were Utah public schools, 14 were Utah public charter schools, and 17 were private schools located within the state of Utah. f. Each member school pays dues that are used to finance the operations of the UHSAA. The UHSAA is funded in significant part by these dues, a substantial portion of which represent public funds. g. Coaches must be certified by the UHSAA, but verifying the UHSAA certification is delegated to schools, including Utah public schools, districts, or their governing boards. h. UHSAA and Utah State Board of Education jointly require that all coaches overseeing sports in member schools meet specific training and certification requirements. i. The current president of the UHSAA is an elected board member of the Nebo School District Board of Education. j. Most public school coaches certified by UHSAA have a state teaching license. k. Players participating in UHSAA sanctioned activities must meet minimum academic standards to participate. l. Most school districts allow players to fulfill physical education requirements necessary to graduate from high school by participating in UHSAA sanctioned athletic activities.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 37. The named Plaintiffs bring this action, including all three causes of action, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class of all those similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
DEFINITION 5

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2017 WL 2773695...
38. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all present and future female high school students attending high schools in the Districts and potential and future female students who participate, seek to participate, and/or are deterred from participating in sports or teams not offered at high schools in the Districts, including girls football teams.
39. Each of the named Plaintiffs is a member of the proposed class and has been or will be injured by Defendants’ sex discrimination and failure to provide female students with an opportunity equal to male students to participate in football at the high schools within the Districts.
NUMEROSITY.
40. Plaintiffs seek to represent the proposed class because joinder of all class members and all persons harmed by Defendants’ failure to provide equal opportunity to participate in athletics is impracticable.
41. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, based on public records requests and publicly reported statistics and, based thereon allege, that there are more than 5,000 females who attend one of the high schools in the Jordan School District. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, based on public records requests and publicly reported statistics and, based thereon allege, that there are more than 8,000 females who attend one of the high schools in the Granite School District. The plaintiffs are informed and believe, based on public records requests and publicly reported statistics and, based thereon allege, that there are more than 5,000 females who attend one of the high schools in the Canyons School District. It is unknown how many of these current female students or how many future female students would seek to participate in interscholastic athletics if additional opportunities were available. Moreover, members of the class who may suffer future injury are not capable of being identified at this time, as the class includes future female students and the class is constantly in flux, with students graduating and new students attending each year.
42. Defendants have not surveyed present or prospective female students to assess their athletic interests and abilities.
COMMON QUESTIONS OF FACT AND LAW.
43. Common questions of law and fact predominate and include: (a) whether female student athletes are being deprived of equal opportunities to participate in sports as required by Title IX, regulations thereunder, and the United States Constitution; and (b) whether female student athletes are being deprived of the opportunity to participate in football and receive equal treatment with regard to the use of their high school football facilities as required by Title IX, regulations thereunder, and the United States Constitution. Because claims brought to enforce rights to equal opportunities, treatment, and benefits in athletics under Title IX require comparison of the sex-segregated male and female athletic opportunities as a whole, the issues are inherently class-based.
TYPICALITY.
44. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class. The types of discrimination that Plaintiffs have suffered as a result of their sex include exclusion from opportunities to participate in sports programs, fewer and less appealing sports programs offered to members of their sex, and the opportunity to participate in girls football teams; these types of discrimination are typical of the sex discrimination which members of the class have suffered, are suffering, and, unless this Court grants relief, will continue to suffer.
45. Plaintiffs are members of the proposed class in that they are current female students who are eligible to participate in high school athletic activities and who are subjected to sex discrimination due to the Defendants’ refusal to provide them with equal opportunities to participate in athletics, including, but not limited to, playing on girls high school football teams. The
6

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2017 WL 2773695...
named Plaintiffs each desire to play high school football on a girls football team. Plaintiffs S.G., L.D., and B.S. are eligible to play for a high school team in the Jordan School District. Plaintiffs I.N. and D.R. are eligible to play for high schools in the Granite School District. Plaintiff M.C. is eligible to play for a high school in the Canyons School District.
ADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION BY CLASS REPRESENTATIVES 46. The named Plaintiffs are members of the proposed class and will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class. Plaintiffs intend to prosecute this action rigorously to secure remedies for the entire class. 47. Plaintiffs’ counsel are experienced, qualified, and competent in federal litigation and will adequately represent the interests of the class in this action.
NATURE OF NOTICE TO PROPOSED CLASS. 48. Plaintiffs propose to provide notice to class members by email. 49. Plaintiffs satisfy the class certification requirements of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) because Defendants have acted, will imminently act, or have refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, denying female students an equal opportunity to participate in football by refusing to offer girls football teams, thereby making final declaratory and injunctive relief appropriate to the class as a whole.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
TITLE IX. 50. Title IX, enacted in 1972, provides in relevant part:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). 51. The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 made clear Congress’ intent that the terms “program or activity” in the Title IX context mean any program or activity sponsored by the public institution so long as any part of the public institution receives federal financial assistance. See 20 U.S.C. § 1687. Accordingly, Districts are subject to Title IX even if none of the funding for Districts’ high school sports programs comes from federal sources because the Districts receive federal funding for at least their non-sports programs. 52. In 1975, the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare (“HEW”), which is the predecessor of the United States Department of Education (“DOE”), adopted regulations interpreting Title IX, codified at 34 C.F.R. Part 106 and adopted at 45 C.F.R. Part 86 (the “Regulations”). Within the DOE, the Regulations are enforced by the Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”).
7

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2017 WL 2773695...
53. Regarding athletic programs, 34 C.F.R. 106.41(a) provides that interscholastic athletics are included within the “program or activity” requirements of Title IX:
No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, be treated differently from another person or otherwise be discriminated against in any interscholastic, intercollegiate, club, or intramural athletics offered by a recipient, and no recipient shall provide any such athletics separately on such basis.
54. 34 C.F.R. 106.41(c) specifies ten factors that may be considered in the determination of equal athletic opportunity: 1. Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes; 2. The provision of equipment and supplies; 3. Scheduling of games and practice time; 4. Travel and per diem allowance; 5. Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutors; 6. Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors; 7. Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; 8. Provision of medical training facilities and services; 9. Provision of housing and dining facilities and services; and 10. Publicity.
Another factor to be considered is a school’s “failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex.” Id. Subsection (a)(1) addresses sex discrimination in the allocation of athletic participation opportunities. 55. In 1979, the OCR issued a policy interpretation of Title IX and the Regulations. That policy interpretation is located at 44 Federal Register 71,413 (1979) (the 1979 Policy Interpretation”). 56. The Policy Interpretation provides that in order to comply with Title IX and 34 C.F.R. 106.41, schools must provide equal athletic opportunities in three general areas: (1) equal athletic participation opportunities; (2) equal treatment and benefits to those with participation opportunities; and (3) equal athletic financial assistance.
TITLE IX’S TREATMENT OF CONTACT SPORTS. 57. The 1979 Policy Interpretation addresses when a school must offer contact sports to girls, such as football. See 1979 Policy Interpretation at VII(C)(4); see also 31 C.F.R. § 28.450(b) (stating that “[f]or the purposes of these Title IX
8

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2017 WL 2773695...
regulations, contact sports include … football.”).
58. The 1979 Policy Interpretation states that schools must offer football to girls under the following circumstances: Effective accommodation means that if an institution sponsors a team for members of one sex in a contact sport, it must do so for members of the other sex under the following circumstances:
The opportunities for members of the excluded sex have historically been limited; and
There is sufficient interest and ability among the members of the excluded sex to sustain a viable team and a reasonable expectation of intercollegiate competition for that team. Id.
TITLE IX’S TREATMENT OF PARTICIPATION OPPORTUNITIES GENERALLY.
59. Compliance in the area of equal athletic participation opportunities generally is determined under the following three-part test: 1. Whether intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments;
2. Where the members of one sex have been and are under-represented among intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interest and abilities of the members of that sex; or
3. Where the members of one sex are under-represented among intercollegiate athletes and the institution cannot show a continuing practice of program expansion such as cited above, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program.
See 44 Fed. Reg. 71,418.
60. Every federal court of appeals that has considered the three-part test has upheld it as valid and has given it substantial deference in applying Title IX or in assessing Title IX compliance, including the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Roberts v. Colorado State Bd. Of Agric., 998 F.2d 824, 828 (10th Cir. 1993) (explaining that courts defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation).
61. The Regulations require that sponsors of interscholastic athletics, including Districts, take such remedial actions as are necessary to overcome the effects of sex discrimination in violation of Title IX. See 34 C.F.R. § 106.3(a).
62. The Regulations also require that recipients of federal funding, like Districts, adopt nondiscrimination policies and grievance procedures, appoint and train Title IX officers to receive and investigate sex discrimination complaints, and disseminate this information to all students, faculty, and employees. See 34 C.F.R. § 106.8 and 106.9. The Regulations further require that recipients promise and confirm compliance by filing an Assurance of Compliance with the DOE each time they apply for or receive federal financial assistance. See 34 C.F.R. § 106.4.
63. The Regulations further require that sponsors of interscholastic athletics comply with the athletic regulations within three years of their effective date, which was July 21, 1975.
64. Jordan School District High Schools have taken no recent remedial actions to satisfy their obligations under Title IX and have never provided female students with an equal opportunity to participate in athletics at its high schools. Now, more than 40 years after the deadline, Jordan School District High Schools remain non-compliant with Title IX.
9

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2017 WL 2773695...
65. Granite School District High Schools have taken no recent remedial actions to satisfy their obligations under Title IX and have never provided female students with an equal opportunity to participate in athletics at its high schools. Now, more than 40 years after the deadline, Granite School District High Schools remain non-compliant with Title IX. 66. Canyons School District High Schools have taken no recent remedial actions to satisfy their obligations under Title IX and have never provided female students with an equal opportunity to participate in athletics at its high schools. Now, more than 40 years after the deadline, Granite School District High Schools remain non-compliant with Title IX. 67. The UHSAA has not sanctioned any new sports in 27 years, when it sanctioned girls softball in 1990. The UHSAA has recently decided to sanction lacrosse for boys and girls for an upcoming school year. 68. The UHSAA sanctioned separate golf teams for girls in 2008. 69. Thus, in the past 27 years the only action the UHSAA has taken to expand athletic opportunities for girls was to sanction separate girls golf teams nearly a decade ago. 70. Open records requests made to the Districts in 2017 revealed that administrators had no documentation whatsoever addressing their assessment of Title IX compliance, plans to comply with Title IX, expansion of opportunities for girls’ participation of sports, or surveys of female students’ interests or abilities.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Title IX – Failure to Provide Girls Football)
(Brought Against Districts) 71. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations. 72. Districts have been and are discriminating against present and future female students in violation of Title IX for failing to provide female students with the opportunity to play football on girls football teams. 73. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and as a class action as set forth in the Class Allegations. 74. Under the 1979 Policy Interpretation, high schools within the Districts must offer football to girls if the Districts offer football to boys, have historically provided limited opportunities for girls, and there is sufficient interest among girls to sustain viable teams and a reasonable expectation for interscholastic competition. 75. Each of the Jordan School District High Schools offers boys football teams. 76. Each of the Granite School District High Schools offers boys football teams. 77. Each of the Canyons School District High Schools offers boys football teams. 78. None of the Jordan School District High Schools offer girls football teams. 79. None of the Granite School District High Schools offer girls football teams. 80. None of the Canyons School District High Schools offer girls football teams.
10

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2017 WL 2773695...

81. Each of the Jordan School District High Schools has historically limited and currently limit the opportunities for girls to participate in sports.
82. The Jordan School District High Schools have historically limited and currently limit opportunities to girls to participate in sports as compared to boys. The following table shows the numbers of girls compared to boys who have participated in sports at each of the high schools in the Jordan School District over the past three school years:

West Jordan Riverton Herriman Copper Hills Bingham

2014-15 Boys 280 502 468 500 547 2297

Girls 195 343 326 371 355 1590

2015-16 Boys 315 489 558 518 563 2443

Girls 190 346 372 357 341 1606

2016-17 Boys 346 497 586 505 559 2493

Girls 195 344 378 413 367 1697

83. Boys attending high schools in Jordan School District High Schools had 44 percent, 52 percent, and 47 percent more athletic participation and opportunities than girls during the 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 school years, respectively.
84. Each of the Granite School District High Schools have historically limited and currently limit opportunities to girls to participate in sports as compared to boys. The following table shows the numbers of girls compared to boys who have participated in sports at each of the Granite School District High Schools over the past three school years:

TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET FORTH AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE 85. Boys attending Granite School District High Schools had 43 percent, 33 percent, and 46 percent more athletic participation and opportunities than girls during the 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 school years, respectively.
86. Each of the Canyons School District High Schools have historically limited and currently limit opportunities to girls to participate in sports as compared to boys. The following table shows the numbers of girls compared to boys who have participated in sports at each of the Canyon School District High Schools over the past three school years:

TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET FORTH AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE 87. Boys attending Canyons School District High Schools had 65 percent, 45 percent, and 46 percent more athletic participation and opportunities than girls during the 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 school years, respectively.
88. There is sufficient interest and ability among female students attending high schools in the Districts who want to play football to sustain viable teams and a reasonable expectation of interscholastic competition for those teams.
11

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2017 WL 2773695...
89. The average football roster size in the youth football league that serves the Salt Lake County area, Ute Conference, Inc., is 19 players, with some teams having as few as 14 players.
90. Only 14 girls who wanted to play football at any given high school would be sufficient to form a viable high school football team.
91. Plaintiff S.G. helped form an all girls football league in Spring 2015 called Utah Girls Tackle Football League, Inc., (“UGTFL”) with the majority of girls residing in the Jordan School District boundaries.
92. UGTFL limited participation to 50 girls in its first year and those spots filled up in less than a week from the date registration opened.
93. Participation grew exponentially.
94. In Spring 2016, participation expanded to approximately 100 girls.
95. In Spring 2017, participation expanded to approximately 200 girls.
96. Participation in the UGTFL is expected to continue to grow exponentially.
97. Approximately 100 girls who played in the league during Spring 2017 will be eligible to play high school sports at high schools in the Districts during the 2017-18 school year.
98. In Spring 2017, Herriman High School approved the Herriman Girls High School Football Club (“Girls Football Club”).
99. The Girls Football Club was authorized to provide information to incoming sophomores at its Sophomore Orientation in March 2017.
100. Approximately 250 girls in ninth grade who attend a junior high that feeds into Herriman High School visited the club’s presentation table during the orientation.
101. Nearly 50 girls who attended Herriman High School’s Sophomore Orientation signed a form stating that they would like to learn more about girls football.
102. Four girls joined the UGTFL as a direct result of learning about girls football at Sophomore Orientation.
103. Two other girls’ parents reached out later to sign their daughters up to play in the UGTFL but the rosters were filled at that time so they were turned away.
104. There is no reason to believe the interest among incoming sophomore girls playing high school football on a girls’ football team is disproportionate to the interest among the class members in general.
105. If the interest expressed by incoming sophomore girls who attended the Herriman High School Sophomore Orientation is extrapolated to the 1372 female students who attended Herriman High School and the approximate 500 ninth graders who attended one of three middle schools that feed into Herriman High School, it would be expected that 372 girls would express interest in learning more about girls football and approximately 45 girls would join a team if the Jordan School District offered the girls at Herriman High School the opportunity to participate in a girls football team. This level of interest would provide three times the number of participants necessary to form a viable team.
106. The foregoing computation of expected interest, however, is conservative because the interest expressed at Sophomore Orientation was to learn about joining a club loosely affiliated with an independent community recreational league team, not
12

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2017 WL 2773695...
an official high school football team.
107. Although data on the difference in interest and participation in independent community recreational teams and official high school football teams is not available, based on anecdotal observation and general community interest among boys, it is anticipated that the interest among class members in participation in an official high school football team would exceed the interest in participation in an independent community recreational league.
108. More girls would be interested in playing football for their high school team than a recreational league team because (1) they could play for their high school team on the high school football field on Friday nights under the lights with cheerleaders and the school band supporting them, (2) they could earn a varsity letter and other awards and recognition that are considered by many colleges and universities in making admission and scholarship decisions, (3) they would have higher quality coaches, (4) they could compete for regional and state championships, (5) they could earn credit toward graduation for physical education class, and (6) they could have their accomplishments highlighted and recognized during school pep rallies, in school newspapers and websites, on school social media pages, and inlocal and national news outlets. See 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c)(2) through (10) (requiring equal treatment of girls’ teams in terms of equipment, coaching, facilities, and publicity).
109. There is no reason to believe that the interest expressed at the Herriman High School Sophomore Orientation is unique to girls who attend schools in Herriman. Accordingly, the same interest in girls football would prevail at Jordan School District High Schools, Granite Schools District High Schools, and Canyons School District High Schools.
110. Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed if Districts continue to refuse to offer girls football teams because Plaintiffs’ enrollment in high school is limited in time so they will lose their opportunity to play girls high school football if injunctive relief is not granted. There is no adequate remedy at law for this harm.
111. The continuing harm caused by Districts’ sex discrimination far outweighs any possible harm caused to Districts if injunctive relief is granted.
112. Plaintiffs will lose out on the lifetime benefits from participation in sports if injunctive relief is not granted. Monetary damages are not adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for the harm.
113. Injunctive relief will promote the public’s interest in ending sex discrimination in public schools.
114. As a result of Districts’ discriminatory actions, Plaintiffs have been denied their civil right to participate on a girls football team and the accompanying educational, physical, psychological, and academic benefits of participating in athletics. Plaintiffs have incurred and will imminently incur compensatory damages for Districts’ violation of Title IX, including lost opportunity, emotional distress, humiliation, and denial of equal opportunity because of sex. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover, in an amount to be proved at trial, compensatory damages for Districts’ violation of Title IX.
115. Plaintiffs are entitled to expedited preliminary injunctive relief and permanent injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring Districts to offer girls football at the high schools in the Districts for Districts’ violation of Title IX’s requirement that institutions offer football to girls if they offer it to boys and enough girls are interested in playing football to form teams that can compete against each other.
116. A present and actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Districts concerning their rights and respective duties. Plaintiffs allege that Districts have violated their rights and the rights of those similarly situated, under federal anti-discrimination laws. Declaratory relief is necessary and appropriate.
117. Plaintiffs have been required to retain legal counsel and are entitled to recover attorney fees and expenses from Districts under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
13

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2017 WL 2773695...
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Title IX – Failure to Provide Equal Participation Opportunities)
(Brought Against Districts) 118. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.
119. Districts have been and are currently discriminating against present and future female students in violation of Title IX for failing to provide female students with equal participation opportunities.
120. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and as a class action as set forth in the Class Allegations.
121. Districts are obligated to provide equal participation opportunities to girls and boys in a number substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments.
122. Districts fail to provide equal participation opportunities to girls in a number substantially proportionate to their enrollment.
123. The 1979 Policy Interpretation sets forth a three-part test to determine whether an institution is complying with its obligation to effectively accommodate girls’ interests in sports: (1) participation opportunities are substantially proportionate to respective enrollments; (2) institutions have a history of expanding opportunities for female athletes; or (3) the institution can show that girls’ interests have been fully and effectively accommodated by their present sports programs.
124. High schools in the Districts do not comply with any of the three tests.
125. Under the first test, each of the high schools in the Districts provides substantially greater opportunities for male students relative to their enrollment than female students.
126. The following table sets forth the participation opportunities and rates for girls, compared to boys, at the high schools in the Jordan School District during the past three years and establishes that the overall disparity in athletic opportunities at high schools in the Jordan School District is significant:
TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET FORTH AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE 127. Every single Jordan School District High School for each of the past three years has had a disparity of four percent or more, failing the first test. The Jordan School District as a whole fails the test as a whole with disparity in each year near ten percent.
128. The following table sets forth the participation opportunities and rates for girls, compared to boys, at the high schools in the Canyons School District during the past three years and establishes that the overall disparity in athletic opportunities at high schools in the Canyons School District is significant:
TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET FORTH AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE 129. Every single Canyons School District High School for each of the past three years has had a disparity of 3.6 percent or more, failing the first test. The Canyons School District as a whole had a disparity of 8.5 to 11.1 percent in each year.
130. The following table sets forth the participation opportunities and rates for girls, compared to boys, at the high schools in 14

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2017 WL 2773695...
the Canyons School District during the past three years and establishes that the overall disparity in athletic opportunities at high schools in the Canyon School District is significant:
TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET FORTH AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE 131. Every single Granite School District High School for each of the past three years has had a disparity of 4.6 percent or more, failing the first test. The Granite School District as a whole had a disparity of 6.2 to 8.6 percent during the past three years.
132. Under the second test, Districts cannot demonstrate a history of expanding participation opportunities for girls because the high schools within the Districts are members of the UHSAA, and UHSAA has not added any new girls sports in 27 years and the only action it has taken to expand opportunities for girls was to add separate golf teams nearly a decade ago.
133. While UHSAA did recently approve lacrosse as a new sport, it did so for both boys and girls and it is anticipated that at least as many boys as girls will participate in lacrosse, increasing the disparity in athletic opportunities at the high schools in the Districts instead of remedying the disparity.
134. Under the third test, Districts cannot demonstrate that they have effectively accommodated the interests of their female students because they have done nothing to survey or otherwise evaluate the interests of their female students.
135. In response to a public records request, Districts provided no documentation of any plans, surveys, assessments, or discussions related to any of the Districts’ efforts to evaluate the interests of their female students or to evaluate whether its schools complied with Title IX.
136. Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed if Districts continue to refuse to offer girls football teams because Plaintiffs’ enrollment in high school is limited in time so they will lose their opportunity to play if injunctive relief is not granted. There is no adequate remedy at law for this harm.
137. The continuing harm caused by Districts’ sex discrimination far outweighs any possible harm caused to Districts if injunctive relief is granted.
138. Plaintiffs will lose out on the lifetime benefits from participation in sports if injunctive relief is not granted and monetary damages are not adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for the harm.
139. Injunctive relief will promote the public’s interest in ending sex discrimination in public schools.
140. As a result of Districts’ discriminatory actions, Plaintiffs have been denied their civil right to participate on a girls football team and the accompanying educational, physical, psychological, and academic benefits of participating in athletics. Plaintiffs have incurred and will imminently incur compensatory damages for Districts’ violation of Title IX, including lost opportunity, emotional distress, humiliation, and denial of equal opportunity because of sex.
141. Plaintiffs are entitled to expedited preliminary injunctive relief and permanent injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring Districts to offer girls football at the high schools in the Districts for Districts’ violation of Title IX’s requirement to provide equal participation opportunities to girls.
142. A present and actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Districts concerning their rights and respective duties. Plaintiffs allege that Districts have violated their rights and the rights of those similarly situated, under federal anti-discrimination laws. Declaratory relief is necessary and appropriate.
143. Plaintiffs have been required to retain legal counsel and are entitled to recover attorney fees and expenses from Districts under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
15

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2017 WL 2773695...
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Title IX – Failure to Provide Equal Treatment and Benefits)
(Brought Against Districts) 144. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.
145. Districts have been and are currently discriminating against present and future female students in violation of Title IX for failing to provide female students with equal treatment and benefits.
146. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and as a class action as set forth in the Class Allegations.
147. Districts are obligated to provide equal treatment and benefits to girls as they do boys. See 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c)(2) through (10) (requiring equal treatment of girls’ teams in terms of equipment, coaching, facilities, and publicity).
148. Districts fail to provide equal treatment and benefits to girls as they do boys because Districts give boys the right and opportunity to use the high school football fields, stadiums, facilities, but do not provide girls the same treatment and benefits. Similarly, high schools in the Districts provide significant publicity to boys football teams but do not provide similar publicity to girls football teams since they do not offer girls football.
149. Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed if Districts continue to refuse to offer girls football teams because Plaintiffs’ enrollment in high school is limited in time so they will lose their opportunity to play if injunctive relief is not granted. There is no adequate remedy at law for this harm.
150. The continuing harm caused by Districts’ sex discrimination far outweighs any possible harm caused to Districts if injunctive relief is granted.
151. Plaintiffs will lose out on the lifetime benefits from participation in sports if injunctive relief is not granted and monetary damages are not adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for the harm.
152. Injunctive relief will promote the public’s interest in ending sex discrimination in public schools.
153. As a result of Districts’ discriminatory actions, Plaintiffs have been denied their civil right to use the football fields, stadium, and facilities on a girls football team and the accompanying educational, physical, psychological, and academic benefits of participating in athletics. Plaintiffs have incurred and will imminently incur compensatory damages for Districts’ violation of Title IX, including lost opportunity, emotional distress, humiliation, and denial of equal opportunity because of sex.
154. Plaintiffs are entitled to expedited preliminary injunctive relief and permanent injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring Districts to offer girls football at the high schools in the Districts for Districts’ violation of Title IX’s requirement to provide equal treatment and benefits to girls.
155. A present and actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Districts concerning their rights and respective duties. Plaintiffs allege that Districts have violated their rights and the rights of those similarly situated, under federal anti-discrimination laws. Declaratory relief is necessary and appropriate.
156. Plaintiffs have been required to retain legal counsel and are entitled to recover attorney fees and expenses from Districts 16

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2017 WL 2773695...
under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Equal Protection Clause as Enforced by 42 USC § 1983)
(Brought Against UHSAA and individual District Defendants) 157. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.
158. UHSAA and individual District Defendants have violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the United States Constitution.
159. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and as a class action as set forth in the Class Allegations.
160. Plaintiffs are United States citizens or otherwise have standing to bring an equal protection claim because they suffered an injury directly traceable to UHSAA and individual District Defendants’ conduct.
161. The Equal Protection Clause confers a federal constitutional right to be free from sex discrimination and prohibits state actors from discriminating on the basis of sex.
162. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, UHSAA and individual District Defendants may be held liable for violating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment.
163. Defendants are state actors.
164. By failing to provide female student athletes with the same treatment and benefits as male student athletes, by failing to provide equal athletic participation opportunities for female students, and by failing to offer girls football teams, UHSAA and individual District Defendants have purposefully discriminated against female students, including Plaintiffs, on the basis of their sex, and have intentionally deprived Plaintiffs of their constitutionally secured right to equal protection secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
165. Given its history of non-compliance with Title IX and knowledge of providing thousands fewer athletic opportunities to females than males for over 40 years, UHSAA and individual District Defendants have failed to provide equal athletic participation opportunities to the Districts’ female student athletes. Therefore, their actions constitute an intentional and/or knowing disregard for Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
166. When UHSAA and individual District Defendants denied Districts’ female athletes equal participation opportunities, they did so acting as state actors and under color of law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
167. Due to differences in the sexes, Defendants violate the Equal Protection Clause by failing to provide separate football teams for girls.
168. Football is the country’s most popular sport.
169. Football is the sport with the greatest participation by boys in high school athletics, including boys who attend Jordan School District High Schools, Granite School District High Schools, and Canyons School District High Schools.
170. Girls are not given the same opportunity to play football if they are forced to play on boys’ teams and compete against their bigger, stronger, and faster male classmates.
17

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2017 WL 2773695...
171. The foregoing conduct by UHSAA and individual District Defendants constitutes a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as enforced by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
172. Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed if UHSAA and individual District Defendants continue to refuse to offer girls football teams because Plaintiffs’ enrollment in high school is limited in time so they will lose their opportunity to play if injunctive relief is not granted. There is no adequate remedy at law for this harm.
173. The continuing harm caused by UHSAA and individual District Defendants’ sex discrimination far outweighs any possible harm caused to Districts if injunctive relief is granted.
174. Plaintiffs will lose out on the lifetime benefits from participation in sports if injunctive relief is not granted and monetary damages are not adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for the harm.
175. Injunctive relief will promote the public’s interest in ending sex discrimination in public schools.
176. As a direct and proximate result of conduct by UHSAA and individual District Defendants, Plaintiffs have been denied their civil right to participate on a girls football team and the accompanying educational, physical, psychological, and academic benefits of participating in athletics. Plaintiffs have incurred and will imminently incur compensatory damages for UHSAA and individual District Defendants’ violation of their civil rights, including lost opportunity, emotional distress, humiliation, and denial of equal opportunity because of sex.
177. Plaintiffs are entitled to expedited preliminary injunctive relief and permanent injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring Districts to offer girls football at the high schools in the Districts for UHSAA and individual District Defendants violation of the United States Constitution’s requirement to provide equal participation opportunities to girls.
178. A present and actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and UHSAA and individual District Defendants concerning their rights and respective duties. Plaintiffs allege that UHSAA and individual District Defendants have violated their rights and the rights of those similarly situated, under the United States Constitution. Declaratory relief is necessary and appropriate.
179. Plaintiffs have been required to retain legal counsel and are entitled to recover attorney fees and expenses from UHSAA and individual District Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court: 1. Certify the first cause of action as a class action on behalf of all present, prospective, and future female students who attend or will attend one of the high schools in the Districts who seek to participate in girls football;
2. Certify the second cause of action as a class action on behalf of all present, prospective, and future female students who attend or will attend one of the high schools in the Districts who seek to participate in athletics;
3. Certify the third cause of action as a class action on behalf of all present, prospective, and future female students who attend or will attend one of the high schools in the Districts who seek to participate in girls football;
4. Certify the fourth cause of action as a class action on behalf of all present, prospective, and future female students who attend or will attend one of the high schools in the Districts who seek to participate in girls football;
5. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction ordering Districts and UHSAA to offer girls high school football teams;
18

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2017 WL 2773695... 6. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining Districts from continuing to discriminate against female students by failing to provide them with equal athletic participation opportunities; 7. Maintain jurisdiction over this matter to monitor Defendants’ compliance with court orders; 8. Award Plaintiffs compensatory damages and monetary relief as permitted by law; 9. Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorney fees and expenses; and 10. Order other such relief as the court deems appropriate. PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A JURY TRIAL AS TO ALL ISSUE TRIABLE BY JURY Dated this 23rd day of June 2017. SMITH CORRELL, LLP /s/ D. Loren Washburn D. Loren Washburn Attorneys for Plaintiffs
19

 
 S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...
2018 WL 10809407 (D.Utah) (Trial Pleading) United States District Court, D. Utah.
S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon; et al., Plaintiffs, v.
JORDAN SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.
No. 2:17-cv-00677-RJS. June 7, 2018.
Second Amended Complaint
Mark L. Smith (Utah Bar #11367), Michelle Correll (California Bar # 229488), D. Loren Washburn (Utah Bar #10993), Jacob L. Fonnesbeck (Utah Bar #14176), Smith Correll, LLP, 8 E. Broadway, Suite 320, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, Phone: (801) 584-1800, Fax: (801) 584-1820, lwashburn@smithcorrell.com, jfonnesbeck@smithcorrell.com.
Brent Gordon (Utah Bar # 8794), 477 Shoup Ave, 101, Idaho Falls, ID 83402, Phone: (208) 552-0467, Fax: (866) 886-3419, brent@brentgordonlaw.com, for plaintiffs.
Judge Robert J. Shelby.
Plaintiffs are female students who file this action individually and on behalf of a class of all similarly situated female students as further defined herein and hereby allege and complain as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of a class of current and prospective female athletes to remedy the unlawful sex discrimination of Jordan School District, Granite School District, and Canyons School District (“Districts”); district employees Patrice Johnson, Martin Bates, and James Briscoe (the “individual District Defendants”); and Utah High School Activities Association (“UHSAA”) (collectively all defendants are referred to hereinafter as “Defendants”) against present and future female student athletes who attend or who will attend the high schools in the Districts who are denied the opportunity to participate in sports not offered by Defendants on equal terms as male students.
2. Defendants discriminate on the basis of sex because, among other things, (1) they provide male students with the opportunity to play on boys football teams but do not offer female students the opportunity to play on girls football teams students and (2) their conduct results in male students having greater opportunity and greater rates of participation in sports than female students. Defendants’ unlawful sex discrimination violates female students’ rights under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq., and the regulations adopted pursuant thereto, 34 C.F.R. Part 106 (collectively, “Title IX”). In addition, Defendants’ unlawful sex discrimination violates the United States Constitution as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
3. Defendants have unlawfully failed to provide female students the opportunity to play football on girls football teams while providing the opportunity for male students to play football on boys football teams.
4. Defendants have unlawfully failed to provide female student athletes equal treatment and benefits as compared to male athletes.
5. Defendants have intentionally discriminated against female student athletes by funding, authorizing, constructing,
1

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...
renovating, and maintaining football facilities, fields and stadiums intended for male football players who play on boys football teams, while at the same time refusing to provide female students the opportunity to play on officially sponsored girls football teams using the same facilities, fields and stadiums as boys football teams.
6. Districts and the individual District Defendants have discriminated against the female high school students who attend high schools in the Districts by failing to provide them with an equal opportunity to participate in high school athletic programs. Notwithstanding the significant number of female students who have the interests and ability to participate in athletics, the Districts and the individual District Defendants have failed to offer the female students at their high schools athletic opportunities proportionate to their enrollment numbers. As a result, female students have been unable to participate in team sports, have been deterred from participating, and have been excluded from the Districts’ high school athletic programs. Summary judgment has been entered against the Districts under the first criteria of the equal accommodation test’s requirement to provide substantially proportionate opportunities to female students.
7. Districts cannot demonstrate that their programs nevertheless comply with Title IX despite the failure to provide proportionate numbers of athletic opportunities to female students at their high schools. Districts do not have a history and continuing practice of expanding their athletic programs in response to the developing interests and abilities of female students. In fact, the UHSAA, in which each of the high schools in the Districts are members, has failed to sanction a new high school sport for girls in nearly thirty years. While the UHSAA has recently sanctioned lacrosse in the coming years, the decision will not remedy the disparity in participation opportunities.
8. Accordingly, the failure to provide female students with an equal opportunity to participate in athletics at high schools in the Districts is intentional and has occurred without justification or defense by the Districts and in total disregard for the female students who have the interest and ability to participate in sports.
9. Defendants’ purposeful differential treatment of female students at high schools within the Districts reveals an utter disregard for laws protecting against such invidious sex discrimination and constitutes intentional discrimination.
10. Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and file this action to stop Defendants from discriminating against them and all others similarly situated by offering girls high school football teams and other girls high school sports necessary to provide equal participation opportunities to female students as well as equal treatment and benefits as required by Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
11. Plaintiffs have been required to retain attorneys to prosecute this action. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their reasonable attorneys fees for all claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12. Plaintiffs bring this suit under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and its implementing and interpreting regulations and under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ federal law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3) and 1343(a)(4).
13. Declaratory and other relief is authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 28 U.S.C. § 2202 for the purpose of determining a question of factual controversy that exists between the parties. A declaration of the correct interpretation of the legal requirements described in this complaint is necessary and appropriate to determine the respective rights and duties of the parties to this action.
14. Venue is proper in the District of Utah pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because the events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District. All Plaintiffs and Defendants reside in this District and all of the illegal acts of the individual Defendants described herein occurred in the District.
2

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...
PARTIES — PLAINTIFFS
15. Plaintiff, Brent Gordon, is a Utah resident and the natural father and general guardian of S.G., a minor. S.G. is eligible to play high school sports for Herriman High School in the Jordan School District. Defendants have discriminated against S.G. on the basis of her sex by denying her equal athletic opportunities and equal treatment and benefits and will be irreparably harmed if Defendants are not restrained from continuing to discriminate against her based on her sex.
16. Plaintiff, Jason Dixon, is a Utah resident and the natural father and general guardian of L.D., a minor. L.D. is eligible to play high school sports for Copper Hills High School in the Jordan School District. Defendants have discriminated against L.D. on the basis of her sex by denying her equal athletic opportunities and equal treatment and benefits and will be irreparably harmed if Defendants are not restrained from continuing to discriminate against her based on her sex.
17. Plaintiff, Lisa Simmons, is a Utah resident and the natural mother and general guardian of B.S., a minor. B.S. is eligible to play high school sports for Riverton High School in the Jordan School District. Defendants have discriminated against B.S. on the basis of her sex by denying her equal athletic opportunities and equal treatment and benefits and will be irreparably harmed if Defendants are not restrained from continuing to discriminate against her based on her sex.
18. Plaintiff, Barbara Calchera, is a Utah resident and the natural mother and general guardian of M.C., a minor. M.C. is eligible to play high school sports for Alta High School in the Canyons School District. Defendants have discriminated against M.C. on the basis of her sex by denying her equal athletic opportunities and equal treatment and benefits and will be irreparably harmed if Defendants are not restrained from continuing to discriminate against her based on her sex. Plaintiff, Barbara Calchera is also the natural mother and general guardian of I.C., a minor. I.C. is eligible to play high school sports for Alta High School in the Canyons School District. Defendants have discriminated against I.C. on the basis of her sex by denying her equal athletic opportunities and equal treatment and benefits and will be irreparably harmed if Defendants are not restrained from continuing to discriminate against her based on her sex.
19. Plaintiff, Bret Robison, is a Utah resident and the natural father and general guardian of D.R., a minor. D.R. is eligible to play high school sports for Kearns High School in the Granite School District. Defendants have discriminated against D.R. on the basis of her sex by denying her equal athletic opportunities and equal treatment and benefits and will be irreparably harmed if Defendants are not restrained from continuing to discriminate against her based on her sex.
20. Plaintiff, Manuel Nogales, is a Utah resident and the natural father and general guardian of I.N., a minor. I.N. is eligible to play high school sports for Granger High School in the Granite School District. Defendants have discriminated against I.N. on the basis of her sex by denying her equal athletic opportunities and equal treatment and benefits and will be irreparably harmed if Defendants are not restrained from continuing to discriminate against her based on her sex.
PARTIES — DEFENDANTS
21. Defendant Jordan School District is a Utah public school district, located within the jurisdiction of this court. The Jordan School District is a state actor subject to the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
22. The Jordan School District receives federal funding so its programs and activities are governed by the requirements of Title IX pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1687.
23. The Jordan School District is authorized to operate, and does operate, Herriman High School, Riverton High School, Bingham High School, West Jordan High School, and Copper Hills High School (“Jordan School District High Schools”), and is responsible for the conduct of each high school in the district.
3

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...
24. Defendant Granite School District is a Utah public school district, located within the jurisdiction of this court. The Granite School District is a state actor subject to the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
25. The Granite School District receives federal funding so its programs and activities are governed by the requirements of Title IX pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1687.
26. The Granite School District is authorized to operate, and does operate, Cottonwood High School, Cyprus High School, Granger High School, Hunter High School, Kearns High School, Olympus High School, Skyline High School, and Taylorsville High School (“Granite School District High Schools”), and is responsible for the conduct of each high school in the district.
27. Defendant Canyons School District is a Utah public school district located within the jurisdiction of this court. The Canyons School District is a state actor subject to the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
28. The Canyons School District receives federal funding so its programs and activities are governed by the requirements of Title IX pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1687.
29. The Canyons School District is authorized to operate, and does operate, Alta High School, Brighton High School, Corner Canyon High School, Hillcrest High School, and Jordan High School (“Canyons School District High Schools”), and is responsible for the conduct of each high school in the district.
30. Defendant Patrice Johnson (“Johnson”) is the Superintendent of the Jordan School District. Johnson has authority and control over the high schools in the Jordan School District, including their policies, practices, procedures, facilities, maintenance, programs, activities, services, and employees in the district’s high schools’ athletic departments. Johnson is responsible for ensuring that the high schools in the Jordan School District comply with anti-discrimination laws. Johnson is a resident of Utah. Johnson is sued in her official capacity.
31. Defendant Martin Bates (“Bates”) is the Superintendent of the Granite School District. Bates has authority and control over the high schools in the Granite School District, including their policies, practices, procedures, facilities, maintenance, programs, activities, services, and employees in the district’s high schools’ athletic departments. Bates is responsible for ensuring that the high schools in the Granite School District comply with anti-discrimination laws. Bates is a resident of Utah. Bates is sued in his official capacity.
32. Defendant James Briscoe (“Briscoe”) is the Superintendent of the Canyons School District. Briscoe has authority and control over the high schools in the Canyons School District, including their policies, practices, procedures, facilities, maintenance, programs, activities, services, and employees in the district’s high schools’ athletic departments. Briscoe is responsible for ensuring that the high schools in the Canyons School District comply with anti-discrimination laws. Briscoe is a resident of Utah. Briscoe is sued in his official capacity.
33. Utah High School Activities Association (“UHSAA”) is a state actor subject to the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
34. UHSAA, along with input from the Utah State Board of Education and the 115 public schools that are members of the UHSAA, regulates interscholastic sport among Utah’s public, charter, and private high schools.
35. UHSAA and the Utah State Board of Education, state school districts, and state high schools, are significantly entwined as follows: a. The UHSAA Handbook includes a joint statement from UHSAA and the Utah State Board of Education regarding the purpose of extracurricular activities in Utah schools and set forth general guidelines and standards for member schools.
4

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...
1. The standards outline when activities should take place and require that head coaches hold a teaching license or complete training programs.
2. The standards require administrators, coaches, and participants to adhere to standards set forth by the Utah legislature in Utah Code Ann. § 53A-11-908.
3. The guidelines are directed to “local boards of education, superintendents, and school principals.”
4. The guidelines govern when public school officials may travel and schedule events.
5. The guidelines govern the curriculum of physical education classes in public high schools.
b. The UHSAA Constitution is endorsed by the State of Utah.
c. Membership in the UHSAA is open to any Utah high school.
d. Voting members of the UHSAA Board of Trustees are limited to individuals who are elected school board members, school district superintendents, high school principals, members of the Utah State Board of Education, charter school representatives and private school representatives.
e. During the 2015-16 school year there were 146 member schools of the UHSAA, of which 115 were Utah public schools, 14 were Utah public charter schools, and 17 were private schools located within the state of Utah.
f. Each member school pays dues that are used to finance the operations of the UHSAA. The UHSAA is funded in significant part by these dues, a substantial portion of which represent public funds.
g. Coaches must be certified by the UHSAA, but verifying the UHSAA certification is delegated to schools, including Utah public schools, districts, or their governing boards.
h. UHSAA and Utah State Board of Education jointly require that all coaches overseeing sports in member schools meet specific training and certification requirements.
i. Most public school coaches certified by UHSAA have a state teaching license.
j. Players participating in UHSAA sanctioned activities must meet minimum academic standards to participate.
k. Most school districts allow players to fulfill physical education requirements necessary to graduate from high school by participating in UHSAA sanctioned athletic activities.
l. UHSAA responded to Brent Gordon’s request for public records under Utah’s Government Records Access and Management Act (“GRAMA”). Gordon submitted the request to UHSAA on June 12, 2017. The next day, Rob Cuff, UHSAA’s executive director, indicated in an email responding to the request that Mark Van Wagoner was UHSAA’s “GRAMA officer.” UHSAA issued an invoice to Gordon for $100 for “GRAMA request for participation survey information.” Thus, UHSAA considered its records government records and that it had an obligation to make these government records available to the public under GRAMA.
m. The legislature has defined the UHSAA as a “governmental entity.” See Utah Code Ann. § 63G-2-103(11)(b)(iv).
n. The legislature has defined the UHSAA as a “public body.” See Utah Code Ann. § 52-4-103(9)(a)(ii).
o. In 2017, the Utah legislature passed laws that were written expressly to bring the UHSAA under state regulatory control. 5

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...
See Utah Code Ann. § 53A-1-1601, et seq. (the “Act”).
p. The Act subjects the UHSAA to the Open Public Meetings Act, GRAMA, and the Utah Public Officers’ and Employees’ Ethics Act. These provisions have been applied exclusively to state agencies. See Utah Code Ann. § 53A-1-1602(1).
q. The UHSAA has previously taken the position in prior litigation that the clear purpose of the Act, evident from its wording, was to turn the UHSAA into a government agency and that the Act could not be more explicit in its intent to specifically target UHSAA.
r. The Act dismantled the UHSAA’s existing 32-member governing board and created a 15-member board. See Utah Code Ann. § 53A-1-1603(1).
s. The Act imposed restrictions on who can serve on the UHSAA’s board. Those restrictions require that six members of the board be elected members of a local school board, three must be school superintendents, three must be principals, and one board member must be the chair of the State Board of Education or the chair’s designee. See id.
t. The Act requires the UHSAA to provide both verbal and written reports to the State Board of Education. Included in the report is the UHSAA’s annual budget, schedule of events, procedures for realignment, and changes to the UHSAA’s governing documents or bylaws. See Utah Code Ann. § 53A-1-1604.
u. The Act requires the UHSAA to create a budget, hold a public hearing on the proposed budget, publish notice of the hearing in accordance with the Open and Public Meetings Act, and file a copy of the adopted budget with the state auditor and the State Board of Education. See Utah Code Ann. § 53A-1-1605.
v. The Act requires the UHSAA to establish a procedure for adjudication of disputes. The Act provides that the State Board of Education shall appoint members of an appeal panel to review the UHSAA’s decisions. See Utah Code Ann. § 53A-1-1606.
w. The UHSAA dictates the sports programs offered by public high schools. The UHSAA’s counsel represented in the court hearing on February 13, 2018 if “there is a sport that is sanctioned, [the high school] must participate.” The UHSAA’s counsel later clarified that, “when the Activities Association sanctions a sport, those districts participate in sanctioning the sport.” The UHSAA”s counsel later represented that “the things we’re talking about here that they want the Districts to do are things that the Districts have delegated to the Utah High School Activities Association to do.”
x. The Districts’ counsel made representations to the court during the hearing on February 13, 2018, that “I think we took for granted that the district follows the sanctioned sports of the UHSAA.... I can proffer to you today that the district offers sports on the same schedule and activities as they pointed out.”
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
36. The named Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class and subclass of similarly situated female students pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
DEFINITION – FEMALE ATHLETES CLASS
37. Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class (“Female Athletes Class”):
6

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...
All present and future Jordan, Canyon, and Granite school district female high school students who seek to participate and/or are or were deterred from participating in athletics.
38. Each of the named Plaintiffs is a member of the proposed Female Athletes Class and has been or will be injured by Defendants’ sex discrimination and failure to provide female students with an opportunity equal to male students to participate in sports at the high schools within the Districts.
NUMEROSITY – FEMALE ATHLETES CLASS
39. Plaintiffs seek to represent the proposed Female Athlete Class because joinder of all class members and all persons harmed by Defendants’ failure to provide equal opportunity to participate in athletics is impracticable.
40. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, based on public records requests and publicly reported statistics and, based thereon allege, that the Jordan School District provided 707 more athletic opportunities to boys than girls in the 2014-15 school year.
41. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, based on public records requests and publicly reported statistics and, based thereon allege, that the Jordan School District provided 837 more athletic opportunities to boys than girls in the 2015-16 school year.
42. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, based on public records requests and publicly reported statistics and, based thereon allege, that the Jordan School District provided 796 more athletic opportunities to boys than girls in the 2016-17 school year.
43. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, based on public records requests and publicly reported statistics and, based thereon allege, that the Granite School District provided 710 more athletic opportunities to boys than girls in the 2014-15 school year.
44. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, based on public records requests and publicly reported statistics and, based thereon allege, that the Granite School District provided 661 more athletic opportunities to boys than girls in the 2015-16 school year.
45. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, based on public records requests and publicly reported statistics and, based thereon allege, that the Granite School District provided 902 more athletic opportunities to boys than girls in the 2016-17 school year.
46. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, based on public records requests and publicly reported statistics and, based thereon allege, that the Canyons School District provided 810 more athletic opportunities to boys than girls in the 2014-15 school year.
47. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, based on public records requests and publicly reported statistics and, based thereon allege, that the Canyons School District provided 691 more athletic opportunities to boys than girls in the 2015-16 school year.
48. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, based on public records requests and publicly reported statistics and, based thereon allege, that the Canyons School District provided 667 more athletic opportunities to boys than girls in the 2016-17 school year.
49. Collectively, the Districts provided an average of 2,260 more participation opportunities to boys than girls during each of the three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit.
50. The Districts have conceded that they do not provide substantially proportionate participation opportunities to girls.
51. This Court entered partial summary judgment on the first prong of the equal accommodation test. “The districts to their 7

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...
credit I think here concede that there is no genuine issue of material fact about whether that disparity rate satisfies the substantially proportionate requirement. And based on my review of Title IX case law I agree, and for that reason conclude that the plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on the first of those three effective accommodation prongs.”
52. The Female Athletes Class includes all female students who were deprived of the 2,260 yearly participation opportunities that the Districts need to provide to satisfy the substantially proportionate requirement of the equal accommodation test. This class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable.
53. The joinder of the members of the Female Athletes Class is also impracticable because they are difficult to identify.
54. The Districts have failed to assess the developing interests and abilities of their female students and this failure on the Districts’ part makes it difficult to identify the female students whose interests are not being met by the Districts’ sports programs.
55. Golf is an example of the difficulty encountered in identifying girls who are interested in playing sports. Golf was offered to high school students in mixed-sex teams until 2007. The Utah Section PGA pushed the UHSAA to offer separate girls teams. At the time, UHSAA’s assistant director did not believe there were enough girls interested in playing golf to form separate girls golf teams. To gauge interest, the UHSAA agreed to allow the Utah Section PGA to hold a series of girls-only golf tournaments. In the third year of holding these tournaments, participation had grown to only 37 girls across the entire state with about between 25 and 32 girls showing up for any single event. The president of the Utah Golf Coaches Association and Bingham High School golf coach did not believe that schools could field a girls team.
56. Despite the UHSAA’s doubts, it gave in to pressure by the PGA to offer separate girls teams after the Utah Section of the PGA agreed to pay the costs of running state tournaments, including green fees.
57. In the first year, 795 girls signed up to play girls golf on a high school sponsored golf team.
58. Over 20 times more girls were interested in playing on a girls high school golf team than had attended the girls-only tournaments before separate golf teams were formed.
59. There were 758 girls who were interested in playing girls high school golf that the UHSAA, Utah Section of PGA, Utah Golf Coaches Association, and school districts were unable to identify until they offered the sport.
60. The Female Athletes Class includes female students who will become members in the future and are unidentifiable, making joinder impracticable.
61. The Female Athletes Class is brought to remedy sex discrimination. A class action is a uniquely appropriate procedure in civil rights cases.
62. The Female Athletes Class seeks only injunctive and declaratory relief so there is no economic incentive to justify the cost of individual litigation.
63. Although the named Plaintiffs are also suing in their individual capacity, injunctive or declaratory relief awarded in their favor might expire upon their graduation from high school, necessitating relitigation of the underlying issues.
64. Class members of the Female Athletes Class are minors for most, if not all, of the time they attend high school so they do not have the legal capacity to sue on their own behalf.
65. Class members of the Female Athletes Class are only in high school for a brief period of time and it is unlikely that many members could sue in an individual capacity and obtain a remedy before they graduate.
8

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...
COMMON QUESTIONS OF FACT AND LAW – FEMALE ATHLETES CLASS 66. Common questions of law and fact predominate the resolution of the claim brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of the Female Athletes Class.
67. The sole cause of action brought by the Female Athletes Class against the Districts is for violation of Title IX violation for their failure to effectively accommodate the interests of their female students.
68. This Court entered summary judgment against Districts and in favor of Plaintiffs on the first two of three criteria under the equal accommodation test.
69. The determination that the Districts fail to satisfy the first two criteria of the equal accommodation test applies to all members of the Female Athletes Class.
70. The resolution of the final common question of fact – whether the Districts’ failure to provide substantially proportionate athletic opportunities to girls is the result of girls’ lack of interest in athletics – will also apply to all members of the Female Athletes Class.
71. The answer to that question implicates a common question of law: Title IX regulations and interpretations governing criteria three of the equal accommodation test. The outcome will would resolve all class members’ claims in one stroke.
72. The resolution of this cause of action will not require any assessment or analysis of any individual class member’s claim.
TYPICALITY – FEMALE ATHLETES CLASS 73. Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Female Athletes Class. Plaintiffs are members of the proposed class in that they are current female students who are eligible to participate in high school athletic activities and who are subjected to sex discrimination due to the Defendants’ refusal to provide them with equal opportunities to participate in athletics
74. Plaintiffs and the proposed Female Athlete Class members assert the same interest: to expand athletic participation opportunities for girls.
75. Plaintiffs and the proposed Female Athlete Class members assert the same injury: the Districts fail to respond to the athletic interests and abilities of female students when allocating a disproportionately large number of athletic opportunities to male athletes.
76. Plaintiffs and the proposed Female Athlete Class members’ claims are based on the same legal and remedial theory: that the Districts’ violation of Title IX’s equal accommodation test requires injunctive relief to provide greater participation opportunities to female athletes.
ADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION BY CLASS REPRESENTATIVES – FEMALE ATHLETES CLASS 77. The named Plaintiffs are members of the proposed class and will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Female Athletes Class.
78. Plaintiffs have no conflicts with the Female Athlete Class.
79. The Districts do not plan to cut any boys programs.
9

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...
80. The Districts plan to increase athletic opportunities for boys by adding boys lacrosse teams.
81. Currently, the Districts need to collectively add 2,260 participation opportunities for girls to comply with Title IX’s equal accommodation test even if Drill Team is considered in the calculation, but participation in drill team does not count toward compliance with Title IX.
82. The National Federation of State High School Associations (“NFHS”) composes statistics regarding participation by sport and by sex in each state.
83. The latest statistics published by the NFHS for the 2014-15 school year showed that the average roster for a girls high school bowling team is 10.
84. The latest statistics published by the NFHS for the 2014-15 school year showed that the average roster for a girls high school gymnastics team is 12.
85. The latest statistics published by the NFHS for the 2014-15 school year showed that the average roster for a girls high school skiing team is 8.
86. The latest statistics published by the NFHS for the 2014-15 school year showed that the average roster for a girls high school water polo team is 23.
87. If all 22 high schools in the Districts offered all four of these sports and the roster sizes were equal to the average rosters of teams across the country, the Districts would still need to offer 1,094 more participation opportunities to girls to comply with Title IX’s equal accommodation test. The Defendants’ sex discrimination against girls is so significant that the Districts will need to offer about eight new sports to comply with Title IX. The tent is big enough to accommodate many girls’ interests.
88. Plaintiffs have already demonstrated a commitment to prosecute this action vigorously and to secure remedies for the entire class.
89. Plaintiffs’ efforts have already led to a court ruling that benefits the Female Athletes Class and have paid and incurred significant attorney’s fees and committed significant resources to prevail.
90. Plaintiffs are committed to vigorously prosecute this action on behalf of the entire Female Athletes Class.
91. Plaintiffs’ counsel are experienced, qualified, and competent in federal litigation and will adequately represent the interests of the class in this action.
DEFINITION – FOOTBALL SUBCLASS 92. Plaintiffs ask this Court to certify the following football subclass (“Football Subclass”):
All present and future Jordan, Canyon, and Granite school district female high school students who seek to participate and/or are or were deterred from participating on girls high school football teams.
93. Each of the named Plaintiffs is a member of the proposed Football Subclass and has been or will be injured by Defendants’ sex discrimination and failure to provide female students with an opportunity equal to male students to
10

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...
participate in football at the high schools within the Districts.
NUMEROSITY – FOOTBALL SUBCLASS 94. Plaintiffs seek to represent the proposed Football Subclass because joinder of all class members harmed by Defendants’ failure to provide girls football teams is impracticable.
95. Over 200 girls participate in girls football who live within the Districts’ boundaries and either currently attend or will attend high school at one of the Districts’ schools.
96. The Utah Girls Tackle Football League, Inc. is a recreational league formed in 2015. Participation in the league has grown each year.
97. Growth of the league is constrained due to several factors: the Districts do not allow the league to send flyers to the girls who attend their schools, practice and game fields are difficult to schedule, equipment costs of a growing league are significant, and it is difficult to find volunteers to coach a team.
98. The Football Subclass exceeds the 200 girls who participate in the league because many other girls would play football for their high school team who would not play football for a recreational league.
99. The joinder of the members of the Football Subclass is also impracticable because they are difficult to identify.
100. The Districts have failed to assess the developing interests and abilities of their female students and this failure on the Districts’ part makes it difficult to identify the female students whose interest in playing football is not being met by the Districts’ sports programs.
101. The experience of girls golf demonstrates that it is difficult to identity girls who are interested in playing a particular sport and that participation in recreational leagues often underrepresents interest among girls in playing for officially sanctioned high school teams. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and restate allegations 56-60 herein.
102. The Football Subclass includes female students who will become members in the future and are unidentifiable, making joinder impracticable.
103. The Football Subclass is brought to remedy sex discrimination. A class action is a uniquely appropriate procedure in civil rights cases.
104. The Football Subclass only seeks injunctive and declaratory relief so there is no economic incentive to justify the cost of individual litigation.
105. Although the named Plaintiffs are also suing in their individual capacity, injunctive or declaratory relief awarded in their favor might expire upon their graduation from high school, necessitating relitigation of the underlying issues.
106. Class members of the Football Subclass are minors for most, if not all, of the time they attend high school so they do not have the legal capacity to sue on their own behalf.
107. Class members of the Football Subclass are only in high school for a brief period of time and it is unlikely that many members could sue in an individual capacity and obtain a remedy before they graduate.
COMMON QUESTIONS OF FACT AND LAW – FOOTBALL SUBCLASS 11

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...
108. Common questions of law and fact predominate the resolution of the claim brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of the Football Subclass.
109. The Football Subclass brings three causes of action: (1) violation of Title IX’s treatment of contact sports, (2) violation of Title IX’s equal accommodation test, and (3) violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
110. The common questions of fact under Title IX’s treatment of contact sport are whether the schools offer high school football for boys, whether opportunities for girls have been historically limited, and whether sufficient numbers of girls are interested in playing football to form teams.
111. The claim implicates the common question of law: whether Title IX’s treatment of contact sports requires the Districts to offer girls football teams.
112. The common questions of fact under Title IX’s equal accommodation test are identical to those of the Female Athletes Class: whether the Districts can prove that the failure to provide substantially proportionate participation opportunities is due to girls’ lack of interest in sports.
113. The answer to that question implicates a common question of law: Title IX regulations and interpretations governing criteria three of the equal accommodation test. The outcome will would resolve all class members’ claims in one stroke.
114. The common questions of fact under the Equal Protection Clause claim are whether football is a popular activity that is currently only offered to members of one sex by a state actor.
115. The answer to that question implicates a common question of law: whether the Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination in athletic opportunities based on sex.
116. The resolution of these causes of action will not require any assessment or analysis of any individual’s claim.
TYPICALITY – FOOTBALL SUBCLASS
117. Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Football Subclass. The types of discrimination that Plaintiffs have suffered as a result of their sex include exclusion from opportunities to participate in sports programs, fewer and less appealing sports programs offered to members of their sex, and the opportunity to participate in girls football teams; these types of discrimination are typical of the sex discrimination which members of the Football Subclass have suffered, are suffering, and, unless this Court grants relief, will continue to suffer.
118. Plaintiffs are members of the proposed class in that they are current female students who are subjected to sex discrimination due to the Defendants’ refusal to provide them with equal opportunities to participate in athletics, including, but not limited to, playing on girls high school football teams. The named Plaintiffs each desire to play high school football on a girls football team.
119. Plaintiffs and the Football Subclass assert the same interests: to have a meaningful opportunity to play football.
120. Plaintiffs and the Football Subclass assert the same injury: the Districts only provide boys with a meaningful opportunity to play football.
121. Plaintiffs and the Football Subclass members’ claims are based on the same legal and remedial theory: that the Districts violate the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX interpretations governing contact sports that requires injunctive relief to require the Districts to provide girls football teams.
12

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...
ADEQUACY OF REPRESENTATION BY CLASS REPRESENTATIVES – FOOTBALL SUBCLASS 122. There are no conflicts among the Football Subclass. 123. Each member of the Football Subclass seeks to play on girls high school football teams. 124. Plaintiffs have already demonstrated a commitment to prosecute this action vigorously and to secure remedies for the entire class. 125. Plaintiffs’ efforts have already led to a court ruling that benefits the Female Athletes Class and the Football Subclass and have paid and incurred significant attorney’s fees and committed significant resources to prevail. 126. Plaintiffs are committed to vigorously prosecute this action on behalf of the entire Football Subclass to resolution. 127. Plaintiffs’ counsel are experienced, qualified, and competent in federal litigation and will adequately represent the interests of the class in this action.
NATURE OF NOTICE TO PROPOSED CLASS. 128. Plaintiffs propose to provide notice to class members by email. 129. Plaintiffs satisfy the class certification requirements of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) because Defendants have acted, will imminently act, or have refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, denying female students an equal opportunity to participate in the same proportionate number of athletic opportunities as boys and on the same terms and basis as boys, thereby making final declaratory and injunctive relief appropriate to the class as a whole.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
TITLE IX. 130. Title IX, enacted in 1972, provides in relevant part:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). 131. The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 made clear Congress’ intent that the terms “program or activity” in the Title IX context mean any program or activity sponsored by the public institution so long as any part of the public institution receives federal financial assistance. See 20 U.S.C. § 1687. Accordingly, Districts are subject to Title IX even if none of the funding for Districts’ high school sports programs comes from federal sources because the Districts receive federal funding for at least their non-sports programs. 132. In 1975, the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare (“HEW”), which is the predecessor of the
13

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...
United States Department of Education (“DOE”), adopted regulations interpreting Title IX, codified at 34 C.F.R. Part 106 and adopted at 45 C.F.R. Part 86 (the “Regulations”). Within the DOE, the Regulations are enforced by the Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”). 133. Regarding athletic programs, 34 C.F.R. 106.41(a) provides that interscholastic athletics are included within the “program or activity” requirements of Title IX:
No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, be treated differently from another person or otherwise be discriminated against in any interscholastic, intercollegiate, club, or intramural athletics offered by a recipient, and no recipient shall provide any such athletics separately on such basis.
134. 34 C.F.R. 106.41(c) specifies ten factors that may be considered in the determination of equal athletic opportunity: 1. Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes; 2. The provision of equipment and supplies; 3. Scheduling of games and practice time; 4. Travel and per diem allowance; 5. Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutors; 6. Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors; 7. Provision of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities; 8. Provision of medical training facilities and services; 9. Provision of housing and dining facilities and services; and 10. Publicity.
Another factor to be considered is a school’s “failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex.” Id. Subsection (a)(1) addresses sex discrimination in the allocation of athletic participation opportunities. 135. In 1979, the OCR issued a policy interpretation of Title IX and the Regulations. That policy interpretation is located at 44 Federal Register 71,413 (1979) (the 1979 Policy Interpretation”). 136. The Policy Interpretation provides that in order to comply with Title IX and 34 C.F.R. 106.41, schools must provide equal athletic opportunities in three general areas: (1) equal athletic participation opportunities; (2) equal treatment and benefits to those with participation opportunities; and (3) equal athletic financial assistance.
TITLE IX’S TREATMENT OF CONTACT SPORTS. 14

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...
137. The 1979 Policy Interpretation addresses when a school must offer contact sports to girls, such as football. See 1979 Policy Interpretation at VII(C)(4); see also 31 C.F.R. § 28.450(b) (stating that “[f]or the purposes of these Title IX regulations, contact sports include … football.”).
138. The 1979 Policy Interpretation states that schools must offer football to girls under the following circumstances: Effective accommodation means that if an institution sponsors a team for members of one sex in a contact sport, it must do so for members of the other sex under the following circumstances:
The opportunities for members of the excluded sex have historically been limited; and
There is sufficient interest and ability among the members of the excluded sex to sustain a viable team and a reasonable expectation of intercollegiate competition for that team. Id.
TITLE IX’S TREATMENT OF PARTICIPATION OPPORTUNITIES GENERALLY.
139. Compliance in the area of equal athletic participation opportunities generally is determined under the following three-part test: 1. Whether intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments;
2. Where the members of one sex have been and are under-represented among intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interest and abilities of the members of that sex; or
3. Where the members of one sex are under-represented among intercollegiate athletes and the institution cannot show a continuing practice of program expansion such as cited above, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program.
See 44 Fed. Reg. 71,418.
140. Every federal court of appeals that has considered the three-part test has upheld it as valid and has given it substantial deference in applying Title IX or in assessing Title IX compliance, including the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Roberts v. Colorado State Bd. Of Agric., 998 F.2d 824, 828 (10th Cir. 1993) (explaining that courts defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation).
141. The Regulations require that sponsors of interscholastic athletics, including Districts, take such remedial actions as are necessary to overcome the effects of sex discrimination in violation of Title IX. See 34 C.F.R. § 106.3(a).
142. The Regulations also require that recipients of federal funding, like Districts, adopt nondiscrimination policies and grievance procedures, appoint and train Title IX officers to receive and investigate sex discrimination complaints, and disseminate this information to all students, faculty, and employees. See 34 C.F.R. § 106.8 and 106.9. The Regulations further require that recipients promise and confirm compliance by filing an Assurance of Compliance with the DOE each time they apply for or receive federal financial assistance. See 34 C.F.R. § 106.4.
143. The Regulations further require that sponsors of interscholastic athletics comply with the athletic regulations within three years of their effective date, which was July 21, 1975.
144. Jordan School District High Schools have taken no recent remedial actions to satisfy their obligations under Title IX and
15

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...
have never provided female students with an equal opportunity to participate in athletics at its high schools. Now, more than 40 years after the deadline, Jordan School District High Schools remain non-compliant with Title IX.
145. Granite School District High Schools have taken no recent remedial actions to satisfy their obligations under Title IX and have never provided female students with an equal opportunity to participate in athletics at its high schools. Now, more than 40 years after the deadline, Granite School District High Schools remain non-compliant with Title IX.
146. Canyons School District High Schools have taken no recent remedial actions to satisfy their obligations under Title IX and have never provided female students with an equal opportunity to participate in athletics at its high schools. Now, more than 40 years after the deadline, Granite School District High Schools remain non-compliant with Title IX.
147. The UHSAA has not sanctioned any new sports in 27 years, when it sanctioned girls softball in 1990. The UHSAA has recently decided to sanction lacrosse for boys and girls for an upcoming school year.
148. The UHSAA sanctioned separate golf teams for girls in 2008.
149. Thus, in the past 27 years the only action the UHSAA has taken to expand athletic opportunities for girls was to sanction separate girls golf teams nearly a decade ago.
150. Open records requests made to the Districts in 2017 revealed that administrators had no documentation whatsoever addressing their assessment of Title IX compliance, plans to comply with Title IX, expansion of opportunities for girls’ participation of sports, or surveys of female students’ interests or abilities.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Title IX – Failure to Provide Equal Participation Opportunities)
(Brought Against Districts) 151. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.
152. Districts have been and are currently discriminating against present and future female students in violation of Title IX for failing to provide female students with equal participation opportunities.
153. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the Female Athletes Class and Football Subclass as set forth in the Class Allegations.
154. Districts are obligated to provide equal participation opportunities to girls and boys in a number substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments.
155. Districts fail to provide equal participation opportunities to girls in a number substantially proportionate to their enrollment.
156. The 1979 Policy Interpretation sets forth a three-part test to determine whether an institution is complying with its obligation to effectively accommodate girls’ interests in sports: (1) participation opportunities are substantially proportionate to respective enrollments; (2) institutions have a history of expanding opportunities for female athletes; or (3) the institution can show that girls’ interests have been fully and effectively accommodated by their present sports programs.
157. High schools in the Districts do not comply with any of the three tests.
16

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...

158. Under the first test, each of the high schools in the Districts provides substantially greater opportunities for male students relative to their enrollment than female students.
159. The following table sets forth the participation opportunities and rates for girls, compared to boys, at the high schools in the Jordan School District during the past three years and establishes that the overall disparity in athletic opportunities at high schools in the Jordan School District is significant:
2014-15

West Jordan Riverton Herriman Copper Hills Bingham Total

Sports Participation

B

Boys’ Sports %

o

y

s

2

0.589

8

0

5

0.594

0

2

4

0.589

6

8

5

0.574

0

0

5

0.606

4

7

2

0.591

2

9

7

G

T

ir

ot

ls

al

1

4

9

7

5

5

3

8

4

4

3

5

3

7

2

9

6

4

3

8

7

7

1

1

3

9

5

0

5

2

1

3

5

8

9

8

0

7

Enrollment Boys 761 987 1156 1274 1129 5307

Enrollment% 0.501 0.491 0.505 0.509 0.486 0.499

G

T

ir

ot

ls

al

7

1

5

5

8

1

9

1

2

0

0

2

1

4

1

1

2

1

2

3

8

1

7

1

2

2

5

2

0

7

1

1

2

1

3

9

2

4

3

5

1

3

0

3

6

4

4

1

Disparity 0.088 0.103 0.084 0.065 0.120 0.092

2015-16

Sports Participation

B

Boys’ Sports %

o

y

s

G

T

ir

ot

ls

al

Enrollment Boys

Enrollment%

G

T

ir

ot

ls

al

Disparity

17

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...

West Jordan

3

1

5

Riverton

4

8

9

Herriman

5

5

8

Copper Hills

5

1

8

Bingham

5

6

3

Total

2

4

4

3

0.624 0.586 0.600 0.592 0.623 0.603

1

5

9

0

0

5

3

8

4

3

6

5

3

9

7

3

2

0

3

8

5

7

7

5

3

9

4

0

1

4

1

4

6

0

0

4

6

9

843 1050 1367 1385 1233 5878

0.493 0.486 0.520 0.511 0.497 0.503

8

1

6

7

7

1

0

1

2

1

1

1

6

1

1

1

2

2

6

6

3

4

1

1

2

3

7

2

1

8

3

1

2

2

4

4

8

8

1

5

1

8

1

1

6

8

9

6

0.131 0.100 0.080 0.081 0.126 0.101

West Jordan Riverton Herriman Copper Hills
18

Sports Participation

B

Boys’ Sports %

o

y

s

3

0.640

4

6

4

0.591

9

7

5

0.608

8

6

5

0.550

0

5

2016-17

G

T

ir

ot

ls

al

1

5

9

4

5

1

3

8

4

4

4

1

3

9

7

6

8

4

4

9

1

1

3

8

Enrollment Boys 900 1061 1454 1420

Enrollment% 0.506 0.482 0.515 0.510

G

T

ir

ot

ls

al

8

1

7

7

9

7

9

1

2

1

2

4

0

1

2

1

2

3

8

7

2

2

6

1

2

3

7

6

8

6

6

Disparity 0.134 0.109 0.093 0.040

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...

Bingham Total

5

0.604

5

9

2

0.595

4

9

3

3

9

6

2

7

6

1

4

6

1

9

9

7

0

1293 6128

0.508 0.505

1

2

2

5

5

4

1

4

6

1

0

2

0

1

9

3

7

0.095 0.090

160. Every single Jordan School District High School for each of the past three years has had a disparity of four percent or more, failing the first test. The Jordan School District as a whole fails the test as a whole with disparity in each year near ten percent.
161. The following table sets forth the participation opportunities and rates for girls, compared to boys, at the high schools in the Canyons School District during the past three years and establishes that the overall disparity in athletic opportunities at high schools in the Canyons School District is significant:
2014-15

Alta Brighton Comer Canyon Hillcrest Jordan
19

Sports Participation

B

Boys’ Sports %

o

y

s

3

0.636

9

8

4

0.598

1

2

4

0.646

8

5

3

0.560

3

6

4

0.673

1

7

2

0.623

0

4

8

G

T

ir

o

ls

t

a

l

2

6

2

2

8

6

2

6

7

8

7

9

2

7

6

5

6

1

2

6

6

0

4

0

2

6

0

2

3

0

1

3

2

2

3

8

8

6

Enrollment Boys
864 955 1021 1069 1067 4976

Enrollment % 0.510 0.491 0.523 0.505 0.530 0.512

G

T

ir

o

ls

t

a

l

8

1

2

6

9

9

3

9

1

8

9

9

4

4

9

1

3

9

3

5

4

1

2

0

1

4

1

9

8

9

2

4

0

6

1

3

4

9

7

7

4

2

6

2

Disparity 0.125 0.107 0.123 0.055 0.143 0.111

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...

Alta Brighton Corner Canyon Hillcrest Jordan

Sports Participation

B

Boys’ Sports %

o

y

s

3

0.605

8

2

4

0.575

1

9

5

0.591

3

1

3

0.538

4

3

5

0.640

4

2

2

0.592

2

1

7

2015-16

G

T

ir

o

ls

t

a

l

2

6

4

3

9

1

3

7

1

2

0

9

3

8

6

9

8

9

2

6

9

3

4

7

3

8

0

4

5

7

1

3

5

7

2

4

6

3

Enrollment Boys
850 1103 1078 1091 1061 5183

Enrollment % 0.488 0.510 0.516 0.503 0.525 0.509

G

T

ir

o

ls

t

a

l

8

1

9

7

3

4

3

1

2

0

1

5

6

8

1

1

2

0

0

1

8

0

8

1

2

0

1

7

7

9

0

9

2

5

0

9

2

0

4

1

9

0

9

1

9

8

2

Disparity 0.118 0.064 0.074 0.036 0.115 0.083

Alta
20

Sports Participation

B

Boys’ Sports %

o

y

s

4

0.588

0

4

2016-17

G

T

ir

o

ls

t

a

l

2

6

8

8

3

7

Enrollment Boys
950

Enrollment % 0.506

G

T

ir

o

ls

t

a

l

9

1

2

8

9

7

9

Disparity 0.082

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...

Brighton

4

2

0

Corner Canyon

5

1

4

Hillcrest

3

6

1

Jordan

4

1

8

2 1 1 7

0.585 0.577 0.560 0.668 0.593

2

7

9

1

8

8

3

8

7

9

7

1

2

6

8

4

4

5

2

6

0

2

8

6

1

3

4

5

5

6

0

7

1041 1146 1049 1083 5269

0.500 0.520 0.486 0.533 0.509

1

2

0

0

4

8

0

1

1

2

0

2

5

0

7

3

1

2

1

1

1

5

0

9

9

2

4

0

7

3

0

5

1

0

0

8

3

3

5

2

0.085 0.057 0.074 0.134 0.085

162. Every single Canyons School District High School for each of the past three years has had a disparity of 3.6 percent or more, failing the first test. The Canyons School District as a whole had a disparity of 8.5 to 11.1 percent in each year.
163. The following table sets forth the participation opportunities and rates for girls, compared to boys, at the high schools in the Canyons School District during the past three years and establishes that the overall disparity in athletic opportunities at high schools in the Canyon School District is significant:
2014-15

Cottonwood Cyprus Granger Hunter
21

Sports Participation

B

Boys’ Sports %

o

y

s

2

0.585

9

2

2

0.573

4

8

3

0.579

1

4

2

0.564

G

T

ir

o

ls

t

a

l

2

4

0

9

7

9

1

4

8

3

5

3

2

5

2

4

8

2

2

5

Enrollment Boys
808 809 1400 997

Enrollment % 0.486 0.496 0.483 0.496

G

T

ir

o

ls

t

a

l

8

1

5

6

3

6

1

8

1

2

6

3

3

2

1

2

5

9

0

0

0

0

1

2

Disparity 0.099 0.077 0.097 0.068

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...

8 3

Olympus

3

4

3

Skyline

3

0

5

Kearns

2

6

1

Taylorsville

3

0

3

2 3 4 9

0.584 0.561 0.592 0.613 0.581

1

0

9

2

2

5

4

8

4

7

2

5

3

4

9

4

1

4

8

4

0

1

1

4

9

9

1

4

1

4

6

0

9

4

3

2

747 679 1124 847 7411

0.496 0.483 0.531 0.533 0.500

0

0

1

1

3

0

7

1

5

5

9

0

6

7

1

2

4

8

0

7

9

2

9

1

2

1

6

7

1

4

5

1

8

8

7

1

4

4

0

8

9

2

0

0.088 0.078 0.061 0.080 0.081

Cottonwood Cyprus Granger Hunter Olympus
22

Sports Participation

B

Boys’ Sports %

o

y

s

2

0.566

9

6

2

0.603

9

2

3

0.560

1

4

3

0.567

7

5

4

0.577

2

2015-16

G

T

ir

o

ls

t

a

l

2

5

2

2

7

3

1

4

9

8

2

4

2

5

4

6

7

1

2

6

8

6

6

1

3

7

1

3

Enrollment Boys 818
1456 1237
738

Enrollment % 0.514
#DIV/0! 0.514 0.495 0.504

G

T

ir

o

ls

t

a

l

7

1

7

5

3

9

1

0

Disparity 0.052
#DIV/0!

1

2

3

8

7

3

9

5

1

2

2

5

6

0

4

1

7

1

2

4

0.046 0.073 0.072

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...

4

Skyline

3

8

2

Kearns

2

7

0

Taylorsville

2

8

8

2 6 4 1

0.545 0.584 0.583 0.572

1

5

3

7

1

0

9

1

1

4

9

6

2

2

2

4

0

9

6

4

1

4

9

6

8

2

0

1

681 1148
855 6933

0.485 0.528 0.518 0.509

5

6

3

7

1

2

4

2

0

3

1

2

0

1

2

7

6

4

7

1

9

6

5

5

0

6

1

6

3

8

6

4

1

7

0.060 0.056 0.065 0.062

Cottonwood Cyprus Granger Hunter Kearns Olympus
23

Sports Participation

B

Boys’ Sports %

o

y

s

3

0.625

4

2

3

0.616

7

1

3

0.573

6

8

3

0.560

1

6

4

0.634

1

4

4

0.572

0

2016-17

G

T

ir

o

ls

t

a

l

2

5

0

4

5

7

2

6

3

0

1

2

2

6

7

4

4

2

2

5

4

6

8

4

2

6

3

5

9

3

3

7

0

1

Enrollment Boys
1070 1309 1508 1236 1099 796

Enrollment % 0.516 0.520 0.513 0.502 0.511 0.503

G

T

ir

o

ls

t

a

l

1

2

0

0

0

7

3

3

1

2

2

5

0

1

7

6

1

2

4

9

3

4

2

0

1

2

2

4

2

6

4

0

1

2

0

1

5

4

0

9

7

1

8

5

Disparity 0.109 0.096 0.060 0.058 0.123 0.069

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...

9

Skyline

3

7

4

Taylorsville

2

8

5

2 8 7 9

0.576 0.589 0.593

6

5

2

6

7

4

5

9

1

4

9

8

9

4

1

4

9

8

7

5

7

6

678 835 8531

0.473 0.501 0.507

5

8

1

7

1

5

4

4

3

2

8

1

3

6

2

6

7

8

1

2

6

8

8

7

1

8

0.103 0.088 0.086

164. Every single Granite School District High School for each of the past three years has had a disparity of 4.6 percent or more, failing the first test. The Granite School District as a whole had a disparity of 6.2 to 8.6 percent during the past three years.
165. This Court has entered summary judgment against the Districts on the first test after the Districts conceded that they do not provide substantially proportionate participation opportunities to girls.
166. Under the second test, Districts cannot demonstrate a history or continuing practice of expanding participation opportunities for girls because the high schools within the Districts are members of the UHSAA, and UHSAA has not added any new girls sports in 27 years and the only action it has taken to expand opportunities for girls was to add separate golf teams nearly a decade ago.
167. While UHSAA did recently approve lacrosse as a new sport, it did so for both boys and girls and it is anticipated that at least as many boys as girls will participate in lacrosse, increasing the disparity in athletic opportunities at the high schools in the Districts instead of remedying the disparity.
168. This Court has entered summary judgment against the Districts on the second test because there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to either a history or a continuing practice of girls sports expansion that is demonstrably responsive to the developing interests of their female students.
169. Under the third test, Districts cannot demonstrate that they have effectively accommodated the interests of their female students because they have done nothing to survey or otherwise evaluate the interests of their female students.
170. In response to a public records request, Districts provided no documentation of any plans, surveys, assessments, or discussions related to any of the Districts’ efforts to evaluate the interests of their female students or to evaluate whether its schools complied with Title IX.
171. Plaintiffs and the Female Athlete Class will be irreparably harmed if Districts continue to refuse to offer girls football teams because Plaintiffs’ enrollment in high school is limited in time so they will lose their opportunity to play if injunctive relief is not granted. There is no adequate remedy at law for this harm.
172. The continuing harm caused by Districts’ sex discrimination far outweighs any possible harm caused to Districts if injunctive relief is granted.
173. Plaintiffs and the Female Athletes Class will lose out on the lifetime benefits from participation in sports if injunctive relief is not granted and monetary damages are not adequate to compensate Plaintiffs and the Female Athletes Class for the
24

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...
harm.
174. Injunctive relief will promote the public’s interest in ending sex discrimination in public schools.
175. As a result of Districts’ discriminatory actions, Plaintiffs and the Female Athletes Class and Football Subclass have been denied their civil right to participate on sports teams and the accompanying educational, physical, psychological, and academic benefits of participating in athletics.
176. Plaintiffs and the Female Athletes Class and Football Subclass are entitled to expedited preliminary injunctive relief and permanent injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring Districts to comply with Title IX’s equal accommodation test.
177. Plaintiffs and the Female Athletes Class and Football Subclass are entitled to expedited preliminary injunctive relief in the form of an order suspending the male sports programs at the Districts until the Districts comply with Title IX’s equal accommodation test.
178. Plaintiffs and the Female Athletes Class and Football Subclass are entitled to expedited preliminary injunctive relief in the form of an order suspending any expansion of the male sports programs at the Districts until the Districts comply with Title IX’s equal accommodation test.
179. A present and actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and the Female Athletes Class and Football Subclass and Districts concerning their rights and respective duties. Plaintiffs and the Female Athletes Class allege that Districts have violated their rights and the rights of those similarly situated, under federal anti-discrimination laws. Declaratory relief is necessary and appropriate.
180. Plaintiffs and the Female Athletes Class and Football Subclass have been required to retain legal counsel and are entitled to recover attorney fees and expenses from Districts under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Title IX – Failure to Provide Girls Football)
(Brought Against Districts) 181. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.
182. Districts have been and are discriminating against present and future female students in violation of Title IX for failing to provide female students with the opportunity to play football on girls football teams.
183. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the Football Subclass as set forth in the Class Allegations.
184. Under the 1979 Policy Interpretation, high schools within the Districts must offer football to girls if the Districts offer football to boys, have historically provided limited opportunities for girls, and there is sufficient interest among girls to sustain viable teams and a reasonable expectation for interscholastic competition.
185. Each of the Jordan School District High Schools offers boys football teams.
186. Each of the Granite School District High Schools offers boys football teams.
187. Each of the Canyons School District High Schools offers boys football teams.
25

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...

188. None of the Jordan School District High Schools offer girls football teams.
189. None of the Granite School District High Schools offer girls football teams.
190. None of the Canyons School District High Schools offer girls football teams.
191. Each of the Jordan School District High Schools has historically limited and currently limit the opportunities for girls to participate in sports.
192. The Jordan School District High Schools have historically limited and currently limit opportunities to girls to participate in sports as compared to boys. The following table shows the numbers of girls compared to boys who have participated in sports at each of the high schools in the Jordan School District over the past three school years:

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

West Jordan Riverton Herriman Copper Hills Bingham

Boys 280 502 468 500 547 2297

Girls 195 343 326 371 355 1590

Boys 315 489 558 518 563 2443

Girls 190 346 372 357 341 1606

Boys 346 497 586 505 559 2493

Girls 195 344 378 413 367 1697

193. Boys attending high schools in Jordan School District High Schools had 44 percent, 52 percent, and 47 percent more athletic participation and opportunities than girls during the 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 school years, respectively.
194. Each of the Granite School District High Schools have historically limited and currently limit opportunities to girls to participate in sports as compared to boys. The following table shows the numbers of girls compared to boys who have participated in sports at each of the Granite School District High Schools over the past three school years:

Cottonwood Cyprus Granger
26

2014-15 Boys 292 248 314

Girls 207 185 228

2015-16 Boys 296 292 314

Girls 227 192 247

2016-17 Boys 342 371 368

Girls 205 231 274

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...

Hunter Kearns Olympus Skyline Taylorsville

283 261 343 305 303 2349

219 180 244 239 191 1693

375 270 424 382 288 2641

286 192 311 319 206 1980

316 414 409 374 285 2879

248 239 306 275 199 1977

195. Boys attending Granite School District High Schools had 43 percent, 33 percent, and 46 percent more athletic participation and opportunities than girls during the 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 school years, respectively.
196. Each of the Canyons School District High Schools have historically limited and currently limit opportunities to girls to participate in sports as compared to boys. The following table shows the numbers of girls compared to boys who have participated in sports at each of the Canyon School District High Schools over the past three school years:

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

Alta Brighton Comer Canyo[illegible text] Hillcrest Jordan

Boy

Girls

Boy

Girls

Boy

Girls

s

s

s

398

228

382

249

404

283

412

277

419

310

420

298

485

266

531

368

514

377

336

264

343

294

361

284

417

203

542

305

418

208

204

1238

221

1526

211

1450

8

7

7

197. Boys attending Canyons School District High Schools had 65 percent, 45 percent, and 46 percent more athletic participation and opportunities than girls during the 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 school years, respectively.
198. The Court has granted summary judgment against the Districts that the Districts do not provide substantially proportionate athletic participation opportunities for girls and cannot show that they have a history or continuing practice of
27

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...
expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interests and abilities of female students.
199. There is sufficient interest and ability among female students attending high schools in the Districts who want to play football to sustain viable teams and a reasonable expectation of interscholastic competition for those teams.
200. The average football roster size in the youth football league that serves the Salt Lake County area, Ute Conference, Inc., is 19 players, with some teams having as few as 14 players.
201. Only 14 girls who wanted to play football at any given high school would be sufficient to form a viable high school football team.
202. Plaintiff S.G. helped form an all girls football league in Spring 2015 called Utah Girls Tackle Football League, Inc. (“UGTFL”).
203. Participation in the UGTFL grew from 50 in 2015 to over 200 in 2017 and continues to grow.
204. The majority of girls who play in the UGTFL reside within the Districts’ boundaries and either attend or will attend high school at one of the Districts’ high schools.
205. Although data on the difference in interest and participation in independent community recreational teams and official high school football teams is not available, based on anecdotal observation and general community interest among boys, it is anticipated that the interest among class members in participation in an official high school football team would exceed the interest in participation in an independent community recreational league.
206. More girls would be interested in playing football for their high school team than a recreational league team because (1) they could play for their high school team on the high school football field on Friday nights under the lights with cheerleaders and the school band supporting them, (2) they could earn a varsity letter and other awards and recognition that are considered by many colleges and universities in making admission and scholarship decisions, (3) they would have higher quality coaches, (4) they could compete for regional and state championships, (5) they could earn credit toward graduation for physical education class, and (6) they could have their accomplishments highlighted and recognized during school pep rallies, in school newspapers and websites, on school social media pages, and in local and national news outlets. See 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c)(2) through (10) (requiring equal treatment of girls’ teams in terms of equipment, coaching, facilities, and publicity).
207. Plaintiffs and the Football Subclass will be irreparably harmed if Districts continue to refuse to offer girls football teams because Plaintiffs’ enrollment in high school is limited in time so they will lose their opportunity to play girls high school football if injunctive relief is not granted. There is no adequate remedy at law for this harm.
208. The continuing harm caused by Districts’ sex discrimination far outweighs any possible harm caused to Districts if injunctive relief is granted.
209. Plaintiffs will lose out on the lifetime benefits from participation in sports if injunctive relief is not granted. Monetary damages are not adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for the harm.
210. Injunctive relief will promote the public’s interest in ending sex discrimination in public schools.
211. As a result of Districts’ discriminatory actions, Plaintiffs have been denied their civil right to participate on a girls football team and the accompanying educational, physical, psychological, and academic benefits of participating in athletics.
212. Plaintiffs are entitled to expedited preliminary injunctive relief and permanent injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring Districts to offer girls football at the high schools in the Districts for Districts’ violation of Title IX’s requirement that institutions offer football to girls if they offer it to boys and enough girls are interested in playing football to form teams
28

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...
that can compete against each other.
213. A present and actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Districts concerning their rights and respective duties. Plaintiffs allege that Districts have violated their rights and the rights of those similarly situated, under federal anti-discrimination laws. Declaratory relief is necessary and appropriate.
214. Plaintiffs have been required to retain legal counsel and are entitled to recover attorney fees and expenses from Districts under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Title IX – Failure to Provide Equal Treatment and Benefits)
(Brought Against Districts) 215. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.
216. Districts have been and are currently discriminating against present and future female students in violation of Title IX for failing to provide female students with equal treatment and benefits.
217. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the Football Subclass as set forth in the Class Allegations.
218. Districts are obligated to provide equal treatment and benefits to girls as they do boys. See 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(c)(2) through (10) (requiring equal treatment of girls’ teams in terms of equipment, coaching, facilities, and publicity).
219. Districts fail to provide equal treatment and benefits to girls as they do boys because Districts give boys the right and opportunity to use the high school football fields, stadiums, facilities, but do not provide girls the same treatment and benefits. Similarly, high schools in the Districts provide significant publicity to boys football teams but do not provide similar publicity to girls football teams since they do not offer girls football.
220. Plaintiffs and Football Subclass will be irreparably harmed if Districts continue to refuse to offer girls football teams because Plaintiffs’ enrollment in high school is limited in time so they will lose their opportunity to play if injunctive relief is not granted. There is no adequate remedy at law for this harm.
221. The continuing harm caused by Districts’ sex discrimination far outweighs any possible harm caused to Districts if injunctive relief is granted.
222. Plaintiffs and Football Subclass will lose out on the lifetime benefits from participation in sports if injunctive relief is not granted and monetary damages are not adequate to compensate Plaintiffs and Football Subclass for the harm.
223. Injunctive relief will promote the public’s interest in ending sex discrimination in public schools.
224. As a result of Districts’ discriminatory actions, Plaintiffs and Football Subclass have been denied their civil right to use the football fields, stadium, and facilities on a girls football team and the accompanying educational, physical, psychological, and academic benefits of participating in athletics.
225. Plaintiffs and Football Subclass are entitled to expedited preliminary injunctive relief and permanent injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring Districts to offer girls football at the high schools in the Districts for Districts’ violation of Title IX’s requirement to provide equal treatment and benefits to girls.
29

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...
226. A present and actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Football Subclass and Districts concerning their rights and respective duties. Plaintiffs and Football Subclass allege that Districts have violated their rights and the rights of those similarly situated, under federal anti-discrimination laws. Declaratory relief is necessary and appropriate.
227. Plaintiffs and Football Subclass have been required to retain legal counsel and are entitled to recover attorney fees and expenses from Districts under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Equal Protection Clause as Enforced by 42 USC § 1983)
(Brought Against UHSAA and individual District Defendants) 228. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations.
229. UHSAA and individual District Defendants have violated Plaintiffs and members of the Football Subclass’ rights under the United States Constitution.
230. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of members of the Football Subclass as set forth in the Class Allegations.
231. Plaintiffs and members of the Football Subclass are United States citizens or otherwise have standing to bring an equal protection claim because they suffered an injury directly traceable to UHSAA and individual District Defendants’ conduct.
232. The Equal Protection Clause confers a federal constitutional right to be free from sex discrimination and prohibits state actors from discriminating on the basis of sex.
233. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, UHSAA and individual District Defendants may be held liable for violating Plaintiffs and members of the Football Subclass’ constitutional rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment.
234. Defendants are state actors.
235. By failing to provide female student athletes with the same treatment and benefits as male student athletes and by failing to offer girls football teams, UHSAA and individual District Defendants have purposefully discriminated against female students, including Plaintiffs and Football Subclass, on the basis of their sex, and have intentionally deprived Plaintiffs and members of the Football Subclass of their constitutionally secured right to equal protection secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
236. Given its history of non-compliance with Title IX and knowledge of providing thousands fewer athletic opportunities to females than males for over 40 years, UHSAA and individual District Defendants have failed to provide equal athletic participation opportunities to the Districts’ female student athletes. Therefore, their actions constitute an intentional and/or knowing disregard for Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
237. When UHSAA and individual District Defendants denied Districts’ female athletes equal participation opportunities, they did so acting as state actors and under color of law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
238. Due to differences in the sexes, Defendants violate the Equal Protection Clause by failing to provide separate football teams for girls.
30

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...
239. Football is the country’s most popular sport.
240. Football is the sport with the greatest participation by boys in high school athletics, including boys who attend Jordan School District High Schools, Granite School District High Schools, and Canyons School District High Schools.
241. Girls are not given the same opportunity to play football if they are forced to play on boys’ teams and compete against their bigger, stronger, and faster male classmates.
242. The foregoing conduct by UHSAA and individual District Defendants constitutes a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as enforced by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
243. Plaintiffs members of the Football Subclass will be irreparably harmed if UHSAA and individual District Defendants continue to refuse to offer girls football teams because Plaintiffs’ enrollment in high school is limited in time so they will lose their opportunity to play if injunctive relief is not granted. There is no adequate remedy at law for this harm.
244. The continuing harm caused by UHSAA and individual District Defendants’ sex discrimination far outweighs any possible harm caused to Districts if injunctive relief is granted.
245. Plaintiffs and the members of the Football Subclass will lose out on the lifetime benefits from participation in sports if injunctive relief is not granted and monetary damages are not adequate to compensate Plaintiffs and members of the Football Subclass for the harm.
246. Injunctive relief will promote the public’s interest in ending sex discrimination in public schools.
247. As a direct and proximate result of conduct by UHSAA and individual District Defendants, Plaintiffs and members of the Football Subclass have been denied their civil right to participate on a girls football team and the accompanying educational, physical, psychological, and academic benefits of participating in athletics.
248. Plaintiffs and members of the Football Subclass are entitled to expedited preliminary injunctive relief and permanent injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring Districts to offer girls football at the high schools in the Districts for UHSAA and individual District Defendants violation of the United States Constitution’s requirement to provide equal participation opportunities to girls.
249. A present and actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and members of the Football Subclass on the one hand and UHSAA and individual District Defendants on the other hand concerning their rights and respective duties. Plaintiffs and members of the Football Subclass allege that UHSAA and individual District Defendants have violated their rights and the rights of those similarly situated, under the United States Constitution. Declaratory relief is necessary and appropriate.
250. Plaintiffs and members of the Football Subclass have been required to retain legal counsel and are entitled to recover attorney fees and expenses from UHSAA and individual District Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court: 1. Certify the first cause of action for violation of Title IX’s equal accommodation test as a class action on behalf of the following class (“Female Athletes Class”):
All present and future Jordan, Canyon, and Granite school district female high school students who seek to participate and/or are or were deterred from participating in athletics.
31

S.G., by and through her general guardian, Brent Gordon;..., 2018 WL 10809407...
2. Certify the first cause of action for violation of Title IX’s equal accommodation test as a class action on behalf of the following subclass (“Football Subclass”): All present and future Jordan, Canyon, and Granite school district female high school students who seek to participate and/or are or were deterred from participating on girls high school football teams. 3. Certify the second cause of action for violation of Title IX’s treatment of contact sports on behalf of the Football Subclass. 4. Certify the third cause of action for violation of Title IX’s equal treatment test on behalf of the Football Subclass. 5. Certify the fourth cause of action for violation of the Equal Protection Clause on behalf of the Football Subclass. 6. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining Districts from continuing to discriminate against female students by failing to provide them with substantially proportionate athletic participation opportunities; 7. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction suspending Districts’ boys sports programs until the Districts provide substantially proportionate athletic participation opportunities to girls; 8. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Districts from expanding their boys sports programs until the Districts provide substantially proportionate athletic participation opportunities to girls; 9. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction suspending Districts’ boys football programs until the Districts provide girls football teams; 10. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction ordering the Districts to offer girls football teams at each of their high schools and to provide equal treatment to those teams; 11. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction ordering the UHSAA to sanction girls football; 12. Maintain jurisdiction over this matter to monitor Defendants’ compliance with court orders; 13. Award Plaintiffs, Female Athletes Class, and Football Subclass their reasonable attorney fees and costs; and 14. Order other such relief as the court deems appropriate.
PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A JURY TRIAL AS TO ALL ISSUE TRIABLE BY JURY Dated this 7th day of June, 2018. /s Brent Gordon Brent Gordon Attorneys for Plaintiffs
32

 
 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

S.G., by and through her general guardian, BRENT GORDON, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS

JORDAN SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:17-CV-00677 Judge Robert J. Shelby

This case involves a group of female students who want more athletic opportunities, including a girls’ football team, at their high schools. Plaintiffs originally sought to certify a class of all present and future female high school students, including those who seek to participate “in girls-only football teams, or in other sports or teams not offered at the Districts’ high schools.”1 Plaintiffs’ counsel made an oral motion to withdraw the Motion to Certify during a hearing on February 13, 2018.2 The court granted the oral motion to withdraw and allowed Plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their Complaint. Plaintiffs amended their Complaint, and now seek to certify a class of female students seeking more athletic opportunities and a subclass of female students seeking a girls’ football team. For the reasons stated below, the Motion to Certify Class is granted in part and denied in part.3
BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are seven minor female students, by and through their guardians, who attend or will attend high schools in Jordan, Granite, or Canyons school districts. The lead Plaintiff, S.G.,

1 Dkt. 33 at i–ii. 2 Dkt. 44. 3 Dkt. 67.

helped start a recreational girls-only tackle football league in 2015.4 The recreational league started with 50 participants but quickly grew to approximately 200 by spring 2017.5 Plaintiffs allege the majority of girls who play in the recreational league “reside within the Districts’ boundaries and either attend or will attend high school at one of the Districts’ high schools.”6
Plaintiffs allege female students in the Districts also want more athletic opportunities in general. Based on public records requests, Plaintiffs allege high schools in the Districts “provided an average of 2,260 more participation opportunities to boys than girls” for each of the three years before they filed this action.7
Plaintiffs sued the Districts and their superintendents (collectively, the Districts), together with the Utah High School Activities Association, alleging three violations of Title IX and one violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Based on the allegations in their Second Amended Complaint,8 Plaintiffs now seek to certify two classes: (1) a “female athletes” class of “[a]ll present and future Jordan, Canyon, and Granite school district female high school students who seek to participate and/or are or were deterred from participating in athletics,” and (2) a “football subclass” of “[a]ll present and future Jordan, Canyon, and Granite school district female high school students who seek to participate and/or are or were deterred from participating on girls high school football teams.”9 Plaintiffs
4 Dkt. 76, ¶ 202. 5 Id. ¶ 203. 6 Id. ¶ 204. 7 Id. ¶ 49. 8 Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint added another female student as a plaintiff but did not otherwise alter the original allegations. 9 Dkt. 67, at 2.
2

seek to certify both the female athletes class and the football subclass for their Title IX equal accommodation claim, and to certify only the football subclass for their Title IX contact sports claim, Title IX equal treatment claim, and Equal Protection Clause claim.10
ANALYSIS Class certification is appropriate only if the moving party satisfies the four requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and one of the requirements of Rule 23(b).11 I. Rule 23(a) requirements Under Rule 23(a), class certification is appropriate only if: “(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.”12 The party seeking class certification must “affirmatively demonstrate” compliance with Rule 23(a) by proving “that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or fact, etc.”13 The district court “has an independent obligation to conduct a rigorous analysis before concluding that Rule 23’s requirements have been satisfied.”14 A. Adequacy The court begins the Rule 23 analysis with adequacy because it will determine how each class proceeds. The adequacy requirement has two components: (1) “the proposed class
10 Dkt. 76 at 46–47; Dkt. 67 at 2–3. 11 DG ex rel. Stricklin v. Devaughn, 594 F.3d 1188, 1194 (10th Cir. 2010). 12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). 13 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). 14 Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living Tr. v. XTO Energy, 725 F.3d 1213, 1217 (10th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
3

representative must have an interest in vigorously pursuing the claims of the class,” and (2) the representative “must not have interests antagonistic to the interests of other class members.”15
Defendants ask the court to deny certification based on a failure of the second component because the class and subclass seek conflicting remedies. As Defendants note, “If the Districts implemented girls football today, it is unclear whether the named Plaintiffs would continue to represent the Female Athlete Class at all.”16 The court agrees that the remedies the class and subclass seek could conflict with each other in a way that would render their representation inadequate.17
In their Reply in support of the Motion to Certify, Plaintiffs ask the court to redefine the classes or certify only a football class if the court finds a failure with one of the proposed classes.18 Where a proposed class has potential conflicts between members, the court may instead certify two separate subclasses.19 Each subclass is then treated as its own class, “meaning it has its own independent class representative who is a member of that subclass and its own independent counsel.”20 Splitting the female athletes class and football subclass into two separate classes—each with its independent representative and counsel—would resolve the
15 Certification of subclasses under Rule 23(c)(5), 1 McLaughlin on Class Actions § 4:45 (14th ed.). 16 Dkt. 86, at 7. 17 Another district court faced with similar circumstances found “an inherent conflict” between a class that included students seeking a women’s rowing team and a class of all participants in women’s athletics. The conflict arose because “compliance could conceivably be achieved, in part, by taking away the allegedly paltry resources allocated to women’s rowing, and bestowing them along with new resources on other women’s varsity sports, a prospect to which the representatives would not likely be amenable.” Miller v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 241 F.R.D. 285, 290 (S.D. Ohio 2006). 18 Dkt 91, at 10. 19 Boucher v. Syracuse Univ., 164 F.3d 113, 119 (2d Cir. 1999); see also 32B Am. Jur. 2d Federal Courts § 1718. 20 Conflict subclasses and their requirements, 3 Newberg on Class Actions § 7:31 (5th ed.).
4

conflict presented. The court thus will split the classes and analyze whether each independently
satisfies the remaining Rule 23(a) factors.21
B. Numerosity
For each class, the moving party must show that “the class is so numerous that joinder of
all members is impracticable.”22 This requires setting forth “ascertainable numbers constituting
the class in order to satisfy even the most liberal interpretation of the numerosity requirement.”23
There is no “set formula” to determine whether a proposed class is so numerous that joinder of
all members is impracticable. Instead, “[a] number of factors are relevant in determining
whether joinder is impracticable, including the class size, the geographic diversity of class
members, the relative ease or difficulty in identifying members of the class for joinder, the
financial resources of class members, and the ability of class members to institute individual
lawsuits.”24 In other words, whether joinder is impractical turns on the particular circumstances
of the case. “The duty of establishing those particular circumstances rests with the party who
asserts the existence of the class and that party must produce some evidence or otherwise
establish by reasonable estimate the number of class members who may be involved.”25
21 Although mindful of the arguments made by Defendants in their motion to file a joint supplemental memorandum in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class (Dkt. 103), those arguments would not change the court’s analysis concerning adequacy or numerosity. Accordingly, the Defendants’ motion is DENIED. 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). 23 Rex v. Owens ex rel. Oklahoma, 585 F.2d 432, 436 (10th Cir. 1978). 24 Colorado Cross-Disability Coal. v. Taco Bell Corp., 184 F.R.D. 354, 357 (D. Colo. 1999); see Robert Newburg, Newberg on Class Actions § 3:11 (5th ed. 2018). Because the court ultimately finds that the Plaintiffs failed to provide the court with any evidence from which it could reasonably estimate the proposed size of the female athletes class, it is unnecessary to consider any factors beyond size for that class. 25Rex., 585 F.2d at 436. The court acknowledges that the Tenth Circuit has favorably cited cases holding that where a suit seeks only injunctive relief, “even speculative and conclusory representations as to the size of the class are sufficient.” Horn v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 555 F.2d 270, 275–76 (10th Cir. 1977); see also Goodnight v. Shalala, 837 F. Supp. 1564, 1582 (D. Utah 1993) (citing Horn). But see DG ex rel. Stricklin v. Devaughn, 594 F.3d 1188, 1194 (10th Cir. 2010) (“In deciding whether the proposed class meets these requirements, the district court must accept the substantive allegations of the complaint as true, though it need not
5

1. Female athletes numerosity For the female athletes class, Plaintiffs allege the Districts provided an average of 2,260 more athletic participation opportunities to boys than girls each year, which they argue is evidence of how many girls were deterred from participating in athletic opportunities. Plaintiffs also argue it is difficult to identify how many other girls are interested in playing new sports, pointing to anecdotal evidence showing that the number of girls who joined high school golf teams when offered far exceeded schools’ expectations. Finally, Plaintiffs seek to include future students and contend that because future class members are “necessarily unidentifiable,” joinder is impracticable. Defendants insist none of this provides an ascertainable number of class members. Defendants insist the smaller number of athletic opportunities for girls does not show numerosity because it does not prove how many girls were deterred by the lack of opportunities. Defendants also argue the evidence of how many girls participated in golf is irrelevant to the question of how many girls seek to participate in other sports. The court concludes Plaintiffs have not met the numerosity requirement for the female athletes class. Plaintiffs have not produced any competent evidence or reasonable estimate of how many girls “seek to participate and/or are or were deterred from participating in athletics.” The evidence about how many girls joined golf teams years ago does not provide persuasive evidence or a reasonable estimate of how many girls are still deterred from participating in athletics. It may indeed be difficult to determine how many girls will join a team before that
blindly rely on conclusory allegations of the complaint which parrot Rule 23 and may consider the legal and factual issues presented by plaintiff's complaints.”) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Absent clear guidance, the court declines to depart from the well-established rule that the party seeking certification must provide evidence from which a court can reasonably infer class size.
6

team is available; however, Plaintiffs did not even provide relatively accessible evidence, such as
survey responses from students indicating that a given student would play a given sport, if
offered by their District. And even if such survey evidence was somehow inaccessible, that
would not change Plaintiffs’ burden under Rule 23(a) “to prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties.”26 Plaintiffs’ arguments about golf serve only to show that the number of girls
who express interest before a team exists may be much lower than the number of girls who end
up participating. But Plaintiffs have not provided any evidence pointing to the first part of this
conclusion—that a number of girls have expressed interest in more athletic opportunities in the
Districts. Without such evidence, the court cannot conclude that Plaintiffs have established the number of girls who seek more athletic opportunities is so large that joinder is impracticable.27
The addition of future members in the proposed class also does not satisfy the numerosity
prong because Plaintiffs have still provided no reasonable estimate or basis for the court to
extrapolate how many future members of the class would actually seek to participate or are
deterred from participating in athletics.
26 Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350. 27 Although it is true that courts have sometimes made inferential leaps to find that joinder was impracticable, Plaintiffs ask for an inferential leap that is both unprecedented and unsupported by evidence. Take for example, Colorado Cross Disability Coalition v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 765 F.3d 1205, 1215 (10th Cir. 2014). That case involved millions of Americans with disabilities; whereas, this case involves a few thousand students. Where there are millions of potential class members, it takes a short inferential leap to conclude that “the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” If just 0.1 percent of 1 million potential class members are, in fact, class members, the class would consist of 1,000 members. But if 0.1 percent of 2,260 potential class members are members, the class would consist of no more than 3 members (excluding any named plaintiffs). Plaintiffs thus ask the court to make an inferential leap several magnitudes greater than that made in Colorado Cross Disability Coalition, and the court hesitates to make such a leap on the facts presented in this case. More fundamentally, Plaintiffs have provided no evidentiary basis from which a court could make any reasonable inferential leap. Unlike in Colorado Cross Disability Coalition, where Plaintiffs “submitted declarations from five of its members who averred that they shop at malls where Hollister stores are located,” Plaintiffs here have not provided even a single student statement that they have been deterred from playing sports by lack of opportunity. Id. at 1215.
7

Plaintiffs have failed to show numerosity exists for the female athletes class. Because the class fails on this prong, it is not necessary to address commonality or typicality. The Motion for Class Certification for the female athletes class is denied.
2. Football class numerosity28 For the football class, Plaintiffs point to the fact that a recreational girls’ football league has grown in recent years from 50 to more than 200 participants, representing a rapid upward trend in interest and participation. Plaintiffs argue even more girls would play for a high school team, which would provide opportunities for school support, awards and recognition, regional and state competitions, and school credit.29 Defendants argue Plaintiffs have not shown that all the 200 participants on the recreational league will be eligible to play on a high school team and would choose football over other sports. The court rejects Defendants’ suggestion that it should require evidence that female students would choose to play football over other sports. The proposed class is for female students “who seek to participate and/or are or were deterred from participating on girls high school football teams.” The court need not look into whether proposed class members would seek to play other sports to determine whether they seek to participate in football. Nevertheless, the court is troubled by the paucity of evidence Plaintiffs have provided. The court notes that Plaintiffs could almost certainly acquire evidence demonstrating the interest and eligibility of the 200 recreational league participants because at least some of the Plaintiffs
28 Plaintiffs conceded at oral argument that a girls football class was necessary because its members were distinct from the female athletes class. Specifically, the conceded distinction was that the girls football class’s members would play high school girls football (if offered by the Districts) at the exclusion of any other sport. Because the court understands that the members of the girls football class do not seek more athletic opportunities in general but instead a girls football team, the court concludes that the members of the girls football class cannot count towards the female athletes’ numerosity requirement. 29 Dkt. 76, ¶ 206.
8

helped form the league and presumably know the identities of its participants. It seems Plaintiffs could easily have submitted questionnaires or surveys from the 200 participants regarding their interest and eligibility for playing on a high school team in the Districts.30
Such evidence would have been helpful in this case; without it, the court must infer that an unknown but substantial number of the recreational league participants desire to play on a high school team and are eligible to do so. And in another context, the court would hold Plaintiffs’ evidentiary showing insufficient. However, in cases seeking only injunctive relief, Tenth Circuit law instructs that such evidence is not always necessary.31
Notably, the Tenth Circuit has drawn similar inferences as the ones Plaintiffs urge the court to draw here. For example, in Colorado Cross Disability Coalition, the defendant, which operated Hollister stores nationwide, argued that Colorado Cross Disability Coalition (CCDC), a group suing on behalf of disabled customers, had failed to meet the numerosity requirement because it had presented no evidence about the size of the proposed class.32 In reviewing the evidence submitted before the district court, the Tenth Circuit noted there were nearly 250 Hollister stores with allegedly inaccessible porches in over 40 states, and five proposed class members stated in declarations that they shop at malls where Hollister stores are located.33 That evidence, combined with the court’s judicial notice of the fact that millions of Americans have
30 See Foltz v. Del. State Univ., 269 F.R.D. 419, 422 (D. Del. 2010) (noting that “questionnaires, letters, and emails from 54 prospective student athletes” were helpful when analyzing numerosity). 31 Horn, 555 F.2d at 276 (“In summary then, where, as here, the class is composed of a substantial number, no great need is present to identify each and every one. Since injunctive relief is the main goal of the action, all of the requirements are satisfied, and the equities favor the plaintiff and the class he represents, it is inappropriate to become stymied by the concept of very large numbers . . . . Injunctive relief is no less proper or practical because the number is 41 or 46 rather than some other number.”). 32 765 F.3d at 1215. 33 Id.
9

disabilities, created a reasonable inference that “a substantial number of disabled people live in the 40 states where Hollister stores are located; that these people, like CCDC members and many Americans, shop at malls, including the 250 malls with porched Hollisters; and that joining all of these people in one suit would be impracticable.”34 Thus, the Tenth Circuit held, the district court had not abused its discretion in finding the plaintiffs satisfied the numerosity requirement.35
Other circuits have reached similar conclusions. For example, in Pederson v. Louisiana State University, the Fifth Circuit addressed numerosity for a class of college athletes.36 In that case, the district court provisionally certified a class of “[t]hose who have sought or seek to participate in varsity intercollegiate athletics at LSU but who are or were not allowed such participation due to LSU’s failure to field teams in said female varsity athletics.”37 The district court later concluded the plaintiffs had failed to satisfy the numerosity requirement and decertified the class.38 On appeal, the Fifth Circuit held the district court abused its discretion in decertifying the class, stating that “[o]ur independent review of the record satisfies us that the numerosity prong has been satisfied.”39 The Fifth Circuit noted that even though only eight women attended varsity soccer tryouts, “well over 5,000 young women were playing soccer or fast-pitch softball at the high school level in Louisiana.”40 The Court also noted that former
34 Id. 35 Id. 36 213 F.3d 858 (5th Cir. 2000). 37 Id. at 867. 38 Id. 39 Id. at 868. 40 Id.
10

members of a Louisiana soccer club had received scholarships to play soccer at other colleges.41 Although those women were not students at Louisiana State University and therefore could not be members of the class, the Court considered the evidence relevant to “the talent pool in Louisiana” and therefore appropriate to consider for class certification purposes.42
The inferences Plaintiffs urge the court to draw in this case (at least for the football class) are similar to those in Colorado Cross Disability Coalition and Pederson. Plaintiffs have presented evidence of 200 girls who play girls’ football and will attend high schools in the Districts.43 It is reasonable to infer that a substantial number of the girls who play in the recreational league will also want to play on a high school team. Additionally, even assuming some of the girls on the recreational league are ineligible to play on a high school team, common sense leads to the conclusion that the remaining athletes would constitute a number too great for joinder.44 In this limited context, Plaintiffs have satisfied the numerosity requirement for the football class.
C. Commonality The party seeking class certification must also show “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.”45 This requires a demonstration that the proposed class members “have suffered the same injury” that is based on a “common contention,” i.e., “that determination of its
41 Id. 42 Id. 43 Unlike the lack of evidence about subjective mental state of the proposed female athletes class, Plaintiffs have presented an evidentiary basis from which the court can make reasonable inferences—i.e., inferences resting on evidence and not merely speculation—about the number of football class members. 44 See Rex, 585 F.2d at 436 (“Class actions have been deemed viable in instances where as few as 17 to 20 persons are identified as the class.”). 45 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2).
11

truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.”46
Plaintiffs argue a common question of law and fact exists for three claims. For their Title IX equal accommodation claim, Plaintiffs assert the court must determine “whether the Districts’ failure to provide substantially equal participation opportunities to girls ‘is the result of girls’ lack of interest in athletics.’”47 Second, Plaintiffs contend the court is faced with a common question of law and fact for the Title IX contact sports claim—namely, whether “opportunities for girls have historically been limited and there is sufficient interest and ability among girls to sustain viable teams and reasonable expectation of competition for the teams.”48 Finally, Plaintiffs assert a common question of law exists for the Equal Protection Clause claim because the court must look to whether the Equal Protection Clause requires girls’ football teams if schools offer boys’ football teams.
The Title IX claims do not involve a common question that is capable of classwide resolution. First, to determine “whether the Districts’ failure to provide substantially equal participation opportunities to girls ‘is the result of girls’ lack of interest in athletics,’” the court would need to look to whether female students in each of the three Defendant school districts lack interest in athletics. This is necessarily an individualized assessment, and the determination of its truth or falsity in each District will not necessarily resolve the issue for all proposed class members (drawn collectively from all three districts) in one stroke.
46 Dukes, 564 U.S. at 349–50. 47 Dkt. 67 at 7 (quoting Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist., 768 F.3d 843, 858 (9th Cir. 2014)). 48 Id. at 8.
12

The second Title IX claim does not satisfy commonality for the same reason. The court cannot determine whether “there is sufficient interest and ability among girls to sustain viable teams and reasonable expectation of competition for the teams” without looking to facts specific to the schools within each District. If there is sufficient interest and ability among girls to sustain teams at some schools but not others, the court cannot resolve the issue in one stroke.
Thus, Plaintiffs have failed to show commonality for both Title IX claims.49 However, the Equal Protection claim presents a common question of law: whether the Defendants discriminate on the basis of sex by providing football teams for boys but not for girls. Unlike the school or district specific inquiries presented by Plaintiffs’ Title IX claims, the Equal Protection claim presents a legal question common to all District Defendants, as it is stipulated that girls’ football is offered in none of the districts while boys’ football is offered in each. In light of this, a determination that the Defendants discriminate on the basis of sex would resolve a common question of law for the entire football class as to all District Defendants. Other factual issues may remain, but commonality does not require the resolution of all issues in one fell swoop. It requires only that the court’s determination on a common question “will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.”50 The legal question presented by the Equal Protection claim satisfies this requirement. Thus, the proposed football class satisfies the commonality requirement only as to the Equal Protection claim.
49 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify does not address commonality for their equal treatment claim under Title IX. In any case, the court concludes the class would lack commonality for that claim for the same reasons as the other Title IX claims. 50 Dukes, 564 U.S. at 350.
13

D. Typicality Next, the class proponent must establish “the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class.”51 This requirement is satisfied if “all class members are at risk of being subjected to the same harmful practices, regardless of any class member’s individual circumstances.”52 Focusing on the proposed class and claim remaining, Plaintiffs argue their claims are typical of the claims of the whole football class because each girl attends a high school in a District that violates the Equal Protection Clause. Plaintiffs have shown they are subjected to the same practice—the Defendants’ refusal to establish school-sponsored girls’ football teams—as any other class member would be. For this reason, the court concludes Plaintiffs satisfy the typicality requirement. II. Rule 23(b) Because Plaintiffs have met all four requirements for class certification of the football class under Rule 23(a), the court must also assess whether they satisfy one of the requirements of Rule 23(b). Plaintiffs argue they satisfy Rule 23(b)(2), which requires showing that “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.”53
51 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). 52 DG ex rel. Stricklin, 594 F.3d at 1199. 53 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2).
14

The requirements of general applicability and appropriateness of injunctive relief for the class as a whole are “independent but related” parts.54 Taken together, the two parts require “cohesiveness among class members with respect to their injuries.”55 To show cohesiveness, the party seeking certification must illustrate that classwide injunctive relief would “state its terms specifically and describe in reasonable detail . . . the act or acts restrained or required,” and that “class members’ injuries are sufficiently similar that they can be remedied in a single injunction without differentiating between class members.”56
Plaintiffs persuasively contend they satisfy both requirements. They argue the Districts have refused to institute girls-only football as to the entire football class and injunctive relief for the class as a whole is appropriate.57 Plaintiffs outline six possible injunctions, any of which would provide relief without differentiating between class members.58 Therefore, Plaintiffs have met the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2).
Because Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2), the court concludes that class certification is appropriate for the football class on the Equal Protection claim.
III. Standing for Equal Protection claim The Districts argue Plaintiffs lack standing for their Equal Protection claim because they are not members of a varsity team that has been discriminated against on the basis of sex. The Districts point to Pederson v. Louisiana State University, in which the Fifth Circuit held that
54 Shook v. Board of County Commissioners, 543 F.3d 597, 604 (10th Cir. 2008). 55 Id. 56 DG ex rel. Stricklin, 594 F.3d at 1200 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). 57 Dkt. 76, ¶ 105. 58 Dkt. 76 at 46.
15

plaintiffs who were not members of a varsity team did not have standing “to challenge the treatment of existing varsity athletes.”59 But Plaintiffs in this case do not seek relief on behalf of existing varsity athletes. They seek relief only on behalf of themselves and similarly situated female students on the ground that they have been discriminated against on the basis of sex. Plaintiffs have standing for their Equal Protection claim.
IV. Conclusion Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.60 It is ORDERED that the following class shall be certified under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: All present and future Jordan, Canyon, and Granite school district female high school students who seek to participate and/or are or were deterred from participating on girls high school football teams. That class is certified with respect to all factual and legal issues relating to the Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection Claim against Defendants.
Because Plaintiffs failed to provide the court an evidentiary basis from which to infer that Rule 23(a)’s numerosity requirement was satisfied with respect to the female athletes class, the court DENIES certification of that class.
Although mindful of the arguments made by Defendants in their motion to file a joint supplemental memorandum in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class, those arguments would not change the court’s analysis concerning adequacy or numerosity. Accordingly, the Defendants’ Motion is DENIED.61
59 213 F.3d at 872. 60 Dkt. 67. 61 Dkt. 103.
16

After the benefit of the parties’ briefing and careful consideration of the Rule 23(g) factors, the court hereby designates the following as class counsel: D. Loren Washburn, Mark Smith, and Jacob Fonnesbeck. The court declines to appoint Brent Gordon as counsel because he is likely to be a necessary witness. The class representatives shall be the named student plaintiffs: S.G., L.D., B.S., M.C., D.R., I.N., and I.C.
SO ORDERED this 9th day of October, 2018. BY THE COURT: ________________________________________ ROBERT J. SHELBY United States District Judge
17