TCU’S CORRECTED RESPONSE TO ROE’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE 

ORDER AND MOTION TO QUASH AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

JOHN DOE,

Plaintiff, 

v.

TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY and 

VICTOR J. BOSCHINI, JR., in his official 

capacity,

Defendants. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:22-CV-00297 

TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY’S CORRECTED RESPONSE TO 

NON-PARTY JANE ROE’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 

AND MOTION TO QUASH AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT 

Defendant Texas Christian University (“TCU”) files this brief Corrected Response to NonParty Jane Roe’s Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Quash (ECF No. 131). 

Two young people with a complicated, bewildering, and turbulent dating relationship1 were 

together alone in a TCU residence hall room on August 19, 2020, for about an hour. Jane Roe 

contended Plaintiff John Doe sexually assaulted her during that hour—a contention that was 

supported by several seemingly unprompted written admissions by Plaintiff minutes after leaving 

her residence hall. In February 2021, Roe and Plaintiff’s fathers met and worked out an agreement 

whereby Plaintiff would leave TCU and stay off campus in exchange for Roe not filing a report 

against him for sexual misconduct. Plaintiff left his fraternity house that same month and then did 

not enroll in classes for the Fall 2021 semester. Unfortunately, it did not end there. Plaintiff 

1

 The text messages between Jane Roe and Plaintiff John Doe are before this Court as summary judgment evidence. 

See ECF Nos. 88–89. 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 158 Filed 12/01/22 Page 1 of 6 PageID 9504
TCU’S CORRECTED RESPONSE TO ROE’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE 

ORDER AND MOTION TO QUASH AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT PAGE 2 

decided to return to campus,2 which, in turn, precipitated Roe filing a sexual misconduct report 

with TCU. Ultimately, TCU resolved the report in a way that satisfied neither Roe nor Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against TCU. Plaintiff did not file this lawsuit against Roe. This 

is not a defamation case—this is a Title IX and breach of contract case. On the merits of Plaintiff’s 

Title IX claim against TCU, the narrow legal issue before this Court is straightforward—based on 

the evidence that TCU’s hearing panel members had in front of them, was the portion of their 

decision that Plaintiff is upset with (i.e., the panel’s determination that it was more likely than not 

that Plaintiff engaged in sexual misconduct on August 19, 2020 and should be suspended for a 

year) “erroneous” and, if it was erroneous, was that decision motivated by the fact that Plaintiff is 

male? See Klocke v. Univ. of Tex. at Arlington, 938 F.3d 204, 210 (5th Cir. 2019). 

Currently pending before the Court is TCU’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 

93). That Motion should be granted for all the reasons discussed in TCU’s Brief (ECF No. 94) 

and TCU’s forthcoming Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition. A major premise behind Plaintiff’s 

needing Roe’s deposition testimony was responding to TCU’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 

See ECF No. 101 (“Doe believes it is important to obtain Ms. Roe’s deposition testimony so that 

portions of such testimony can be used in responding to Defendant’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment.”); ECF No. 106 (“Plaintiff wants to go forward with the deposition as soon as possible 

because of his impending October 18 deadline to respond to Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment.”); ECF No. 111 (“Plaintiff John Doe (‘Doe’) files this Second Emergency Motion for 

Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment because Doe has 

not been able to depose Jane Roe.”). Notably, on November 4, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel made 

2

 Plaintiff did not re-enroll in classes for the Fall 2021 semester, but he “returned to campus” by attending campusbased events, and Roe continued to see him on TCU’s campus, which led to her submitting the report. See ECF No. 

15, Pl.’s Appendix in support of his Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Exhibit 15 (App. 141), Exhibit 19 (App. 193). 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 158 Filed 12/01/22 Page 2 of 6 PageID 9505
TCU’S CORRECTED RESPONSE TO ROE’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE 

ORDER AND MOTION TO QUASH AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT PAGE 3 

plain before this Court that Plaintiff needs nothing further from Roe for this Court to resolve TCU’s 

summary judgment motion—and Plaintiff has since filed his Opposition. 

Regarding the merits of the dueling contempt and protective order motions, the dispositive 

legal questions in this case guide what lines of inquiry are relevant, and TCU echoes Roe’s 

counsel’s concern that Plaintiff’s counsel used Roe’s deposition not primarily as a means to 

discover relevant information about TCU’s conduct hearing process or about any evidence of sex 

discrimination against Plaintiff during that process, but rather, to relitigate the underlying sex 

assault—which case law is clear has no place in this type of lawsuit, where neither alleged 

defamation nor “the truth” about what happened are at issue. See, e.g., Gomes v. Univ. of Maine 

Sys., 365 F. Supp. 2d 6, 13 (D. Me. 2005) (“The Court is not asked to make an independent 

determination about what happened between the Plaintiff[] and the Complainant on 

[August 19, 2020.]”). It is irrelevant, then, to question Roe about “whether a sexual assault 

occurred, whether the acts were consensual, who among the Plaintiff[] and the Complainant is 

credible, and who is not.” Id. at 14; see also Doe v. Univ. of So. Ind., 43 F.4th 784, 799 (7th Cir. 

2022) (“We do not know just what happened between John and Jane on the night of [August 19, 

2020], but that is not the question for federal courts on the merits of John’s Title IX claim.”). 

Just by way of example, Plaintiff’s counsel had many questions about whether Roe was 

wearing underwear (or “panties”) during the Colby Hall Incident: “So I want to know . . . you 

were wearing panties when he comes over to your dorm room, correct?” Presumably, this was to 

test Plaintiff’s newest theory as to why he could not have inserted his fingers into Roe’s vagina 

because Roe was wearing impenetrable underwear. As Plaintiff’s counsel is well aware, though, 

the problem with this line of questioning is what Roe was wearing that night was already explored 

during TCU’s student conduct hearing and neither Roe nor Plaintiff recalled what she was 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 158 Filed 12/01/22 Page 3 of 6 PageID 9506
TCU’S CORRECTED RESPONSE TO ROE’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE 

ORDER AND MOTION TO QUASH AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT PAGE 4 

wearing. Given this, questions at this point about whether she was wearing underwear on 

August 19th are irrelevant because this information was not before the hearing panel. 

Roe should be protected from having to sit for another deposition because Plaintiff’s 

counsel has nothing left to ask (given the Response to TCU’s Motion for Summary Judgment 

already on file) and, even if there was something left to ask, Plaintiff’s counsel had their chance to 

ask it—but instead wandered into irrelevant topics about what happened on August 19, 2020. Her 

motion should be granted. 

As a final significant note, undersigned counsel is not a mental health professional and is 

certainly not qualified to question the alarming assertion made by Roe’s counsel and mental health 

professional that Roe could be pushed to commit suicide if required to testify further.3 If that is 

even a remote possibility, it is a clarion call for the 14 lawyers who have worked on this case 

involving the lives of two young people to put their heads together to develop a path to ensure this 

does not happen while ensuring that Plaintiff is not unfairly prejudiced. In any event, undersigned 

counsel certainly sees no basis for Plaintiff’s counsel’s blithe dismissal of the possibility that Roe 

could harm herself. At a minimum, this warrants proceeding with caution. 

3

 Between TCU’s student conduct hearing and her deposition, Roe has already been cross examined by Plaintiff’s 

counsel for approximately nine hours. 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 158 Filed 12/01/22 Page 4 of 6 PageID 9507
TCU’S CORRECTED RESPONSE TO ROE’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE 

ORDER AND MOTION TO QUASH AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT PAGE 5 

Dated: December 1, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 

By: /s/ Scott D. Schneider 

Scott D. Schneider, pro hac vice 

Texas Bar No. 24054023

scott.schneider@huschblackwell.com

Samuel P. Rajaratnam 

Texas Bar No. 24116935 

sammy.rajaratnam@huschblackwell.com 

Caidi Davis, pro hac vice

Texas Bar No. 24121557 

caidi.davis@huschblackwell.com 

111 Congress Avenue, Suite 1400 

Austin, Texas 78701 

(512) 472-5456 

(512) 479-1101 (fax) 

Tracy Graves Wolf 

Texas Bar No. 24004994 

tracy.wolf@huschblackwell.com 

1900 N. Pearl Street, Suite 1800 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

(214) 999-6173 

(214) 999-6170 (fax) 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 

TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 158 Filed 12/01/22 Page 5 of 6 PageID 9508
TCU’S CORRECTED RESPONSE TO ROE’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE 

ORDER AND MOTION TO QUASH AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT PAGE 6 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I certify that this document was served on the below-listed counsel of record via email in 

accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on December 1, 2022. 

Brian Roark 

brian@brianroark.com 

BOTSFORD & ROARK 

1307 West Avenue 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Bryan D. Bruner 

bbruner@bjplaw.com 

Lynne B. Frank 

Lfrank@bjplaw.com 

BRUNER & BRUNER, P.C. 

3700 W. 7th Street 

Fort Worth, Texas 76107 

H. Dustin Fillmore, III 

dusty@fillmorefirm.com 

THE FILLMORE LAW FIRM, L.L.P. 

201 Main Street, Suite 801 

Fort Worth, Texas 76102 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

/s/ Samuel P. Rajaratnam 

Samuel P. Rajaratnam

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 158 Filed 12/01/22 Page 6 of 6 PageID 9509