DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF

JOHN DOE’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

HB: 4868-0142-7235.1

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

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANT TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY’S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

TO PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendant Texas Christian University files its Original Answer to Plaintiff John Doe’s First 

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 43) and, in support, shows the Court as follows: 

I. INTRODUCTION 

1. Defendant admits that Plaintiff has brought this action under 20 U.S.C. 1681, et 

seq. (“Title IX”) and for breach of contract. The remaining allegations in paragraph 1 consist of 

Plaintiff’s legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, 

Defendant denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 1 and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to 

the relief requested therein.

2. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 2. Defendant denies that it engaged 

in a biased application of Title IX or that Plaintiff is a victim of any sort of sex discrimination. 

Rather, pursuant to TCU’s policies prohibiting sexual misconduct, student Jane Roe made two 

allegations of sexual misconduct against Plaintiff. Following an approximately seventeen-hour 

hearing in which Plaintiff was actively represented by counsel and that was chaired by a retired

judge, Plaintiff was found responsible for engaging in prohibited sexual misconduct for one of the 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 58 Filed 06/13/22 Page 1 of 22 PageID 3821
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF

JOHN DOE’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 2

HB: 4868-0142-7235.1

allegations and not responsible for the other. Notably, the one responsibility finding against 

Plaintiff was largely based on his own written statements, which included the following: “it was 

difficult for me hearing that i am a rapist again but it is true and i am very sorry for the pain that 

that has caused you.” 

3. Defendant admits the first sentence of paragraph 3. Defendant admits Plaintiff is 

on a Dean’s scholarship but is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

concerning what Plaintiff intends to do. Defendant admits Plaintiff’s GPA (not including the 

Spring 2022 semester) is a 3.45. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form 

a belief concerning whether Plaintiff is an Eagle Scout. Defendant is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief concerning whether Plaintiff has had problems with the law. 

Defendant deniesthat Plaintiff was “vindictively and falsely accused” of sexual assault. Defendant 

admits Roe claimed that on August 19, 2020, Plaintiff digitally penetrated Roe’s vagina without 

her consent while in her dorm room in Colby Hall on TCU’s campus but denies that the allegation 

is false. Defendant denies Roe made her complaint thirteen months after Allegation 1. 

4. Defendant admits that Roe claimed that on October 3, 2020, Doe inserted his penis 

in her vagina without her consent while in Austin. Defendant is without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief concerning the remaining allegations in paragraph 4.

5. Defendant admits that Roe clarified the timing of her claims but denies the 

remaining allegations in paragraph 5.

6. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 6. 

7. Defendant admits that the hearing panel suspended Doe “effective immediately” 

and stated that he is eligible to reenroll in classes for the 2023 Maymester but denies that the 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 58 Filed 06/13/22 Page 2 of 22 PageID 3822
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF

JOHN DOE’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 3 

HB: 4868-0142-7235.1

Deliberative Report provides that such enrollment and acceptance is not guaranteed. Defendant 

admits the remaining allegations in paragraph 7. 

8. Defendant admits the first two sentences of paragraph 8. Defendant admits that 

Michael Russel, the Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, upheld the hearing panel’s 

decision with respect to Allegation 1, but denies that Doe had “no choice but to file 

this Complaint.” 

II. PARTIES

9. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 9. 

10. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 10. 

11. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 11 but denies that Boschini is a 

proper party to this case. 

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12. The allegations in paragraph 12 contain Plaintiff’s legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. 

13. The allegations in paragraph 13 contain Plaintiff’s legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. 

14. The allegations in paragraph 14 contain Plaintiff’s legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. 

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. TCU’s Policies

15. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 15 as drafted. Defendant admits it 

has several policies that apply to students and faculty. 

16. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 16. 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 58 Filed 06/13/22 Page 3 of 22 PageID 3823
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF

JOHN DOE’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 4

HB: 4868-0142-7235.1

17. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 17.

18. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 18.

19. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 19.

20. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 20. 

B. Doe’s and Roe’s Romantic and Sexual Relationship from 2018-2020

21. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 21. 

22. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 22. 

23. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 23.

C. The Colby Hall Incident (Allegation 1)

24. Defendant admits that Roe and Plaintiff remained sexually active after they were 

“officially” broken up. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

concerning whether Roe “frequently initiated” the sex. 

25. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 25. 

26. Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the language of a text 

message exchange between Roe and Plaintiff in paragraph 26. 

27. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

concerning whether Roe and Doe communicated “off and on most of the day” on August 19, 2020 

(the date of the Colby Hall incident). Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the 

language of a text message exchange between Roe and Plaintiff in the second sentence of 

paragraph 27. 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 58 Filed 06/13/22 Page 4 of 22 PageID 3824
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF

JOHN DOE’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 5

HB: 4868-0142-7235.1

28. Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the language of a text 

message exchange between Roe and Plaintiff in paragraph 28.

29. Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the language of a text 

message exchange between Roe and Plaintiff in paragraph 29.

30. Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the language of a text 

message exchange between Roe and Plaintiff in paragraph 30.

31. Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the language of a text 

message exchange between Roe and Plaintiff in paragraph 31.

32. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 32. 

33. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 33.

34. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 34. 

35. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 35. 

36. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 36. 

37. Defendant admits that Plaintiff slid his hands down Roe’s pants. Defendant is 

without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining 

allegations in paragraph 37. 

38. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 38

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 58 Filed 06/13/22 Page 5 of 22 PageID 3825
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF

JOHN DOE’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 6

HB: 4868-0142-7235.1

39. Defendant admits Plaintiff was told something to the effect of “we’re not going to 

hook up today.” Defendant denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 39. 

40. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 40.

41. Defendant admits that Roe alleged that, while in her room, Plaintiff inserted his 

fingers into her vagina without her consent (Allegation 1) but denies that the allegation was false.

42. Defendant denies that Roe has difficulty detailing the assault “because her 

allegation is false” and denies that the allegation was false.

43. Defendant denies that Roe never yelled for help, attempted to run out of the room, 

called or texted anyone, or pushed Doe’s hand off her “because her allegation is false” and denies

that the allegation was false.

44. Defendant admits part of the proof for Allegation 1 is contained in a text exchange 

with Plaintiff shortly after the incident where Plaintiff apologized for his behavior, admitted that 

he had no self-control, and admitted, “I’m one of those aren’t I” in response to a text from Roe 

that said, “I mean self control? Like rapists say the same thing.”

45. Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the language of a text 

message exchange between Roe and Plaintiff in paragraph 45 but denies that the text messages 

are “exculpatory.”

46. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 46 but denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the text messages as “exculpatory.”

47. Defendant denies that understanding Plaintiff’s admissions requires one to 

understand the pattern in which Plaintiff “handled” Roe throughout their relationship.

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 58 Filed 06/13/22 Page 6 of 22 PageID 3826
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF

JOHN DOE’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 7

HB: 4868-0142-7235.1

48. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 48.

49. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 49.

50. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 50.

51. Defendant denies that Plaintiff admitting he was rapist “worked.” Defendant is 

without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining 

allegations in paragraph 51.

52. Defendant denies that Roe “cr[ied] rape” and deny that Plaintiff’s admissions were 

“untrue.” Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth

of the remaining allegations in paragraph 52. 

53. Defendant admits the text message exchange referenced in paragraph 53 was 

submitted as evidence by Roe in support of her allegations. 

D. The Austin Incident (Allegation 2)

54. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 54. 

55. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 55.

56. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 56. 

57. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 57.

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 58 Filed 06/13/22 Page 7 of 22 PageID 3827
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF

JOHN DOE’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 8

HB: 4868-0142-7235.1

58. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 58.

59. Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the language of Roe and 

Plaintiff’s responses to Final Investigative Report in paragraph 59 but denies that Roe’s mistake 

was “significant.”

60. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 60.

61. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 61.

62. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 62. 

63. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 63. 

64. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 64.

65. Defendant admits Roe testified that, of all the times she had sex with Plaintiff, she 

wanted to participate in about 10 percent of those encounters. Defendant is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief concerning what Roe “believed” and denies that the 

evidence revealed this belief.

E. Communications, Interactions and Consensual Sex after the Austin Incident

66. Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the language of text message 

exchanges between Roe and Plaintiff in paragraph 66. 

67. Defendant admits that Plaintiff claims Roe sent him a message via Snapchat that 

said, “I want to fuck you,” but is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

concerning whether she in fact sent that message. 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 58 Filed 06/13/22 Page 8 of 22 PageID 3828
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF

JOHN DOE’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 9

HB: 4868-0142-7235.1

68. Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the language of a text 

message exchange between Roe and Plaintiff in paragraph 68 but is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief concerning whether Roe’s Snapchat messages “frequently 

contradicted her text messages.”

69. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 69. 

F. Roe’s Jealousy and Motive to Lie

70. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 70.

71. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 71.

72. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 72.

73. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 73.

74. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 74.

75. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 75.

76. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 76. 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 58 Filed 06/13/22 Page 9 of 22 PageID 3829
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF

JOHN DOE’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 10

HB: 4868-0142-7235.1

77. Defendant admits that Plaintiff took the Fall 2021 semester off from school but is

without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining 

allegations in paragraph 77.

78. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 78.

79. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 79 and denies that Roe’s accusation 

of sexual assault was false.

G. Roe Files a Title IX Complaint

80. Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the language of the Code in 

paragraph 80. 

81. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 81. 

82. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 82.

83. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 83.

84. Defendant admits the first sentence of paragraph 84. Defendant admits Plaintiff is 

quoting or paraphrasing the language of the preliminary investigate report in the second sentence 

of paragraph 84. 

85. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 85.

86. Defendant admits the first sentence of paragraph 86. Defendant admits Plaintiff is 

quoting or paraphrasing the language of his response to the preliminary investigative report in the 

second sentence of paragraph 86.

87. Defendant admits Doe submitted polygraph examinations for consideration but 

denies such examinations “further evidenced proof of Doe’s innocence.”

88. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 88.

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 58 Filed 06/13/22 Page 10 of 22 PageID 3830
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF

JOHN DOE’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 11

HB: 4868-0142-7235.1

89. Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the language of Doe’s 

response to the preliminary investigative report in paragraph 89 but denies Plaintiff’s interpretation

and/or characterization of the “new” details regarding the Allegations. 

90. Defendant admits the first sentence of paragraph 90. Defendant admits Plaintiff is 

quoting or paraphrasing the language of the Final Investigative Report in the second sentence of 

paragraph 90.

91. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 91. 

92. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 92.

93. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 93.

94. Defendant admits that Plaintiff timely submitted his response to the Final 

Investigative Report on January 24, 2022 but denies that the submission of “dozens of exhibits 

which he intended to use as rebuttal evidence” was timely. Defendant denies that the exhibits 

included exculpatory text messages. 

95. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 95.

96. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 96.

H. The Hearing

97. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 97 to the extent they describe 

Plaintiff’s questions and what he did and did not contest. Defendant denies that TCU improperly 

consolidated the cases.

98. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 98 to the extent they describe 

Plaintiff and Brian Roark’s position and Defendant’s position. Defendant denies that TCU 

improperly consolidated the cases.

99. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 99.

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 58 Filed 06/13/22 Page 11 of 22 PageID 3831
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF

JOHN DOE’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 12

HB: 4868-0142-7235.1

100. Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the language of the Code in 

paragraph 100.

101. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 101.

102. Defendant denies that the hearing panelists were “essentially the ‘jury’” but admits

the remaining allegations in paragraph 102.

103. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 103.

104. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 104.

105. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 105 but denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the text messages as “exculpatory.”

106. Defendant admits that Judge Ruvolo excluded Plaintiff’s late-submitted evidence 

and admits that the excluded exhibits primarily consisted of text messages, but denies the 

remaining allegations in paragraph 106 and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

Defendants further asserts that Judge Ruvolo also excluded Roe’s late-submitted evidence.

107. Defendant denies the first sentence of paragraph 107. Defendant admits the second 

sentence of paragraph 107. 

108. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 108.

109. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 109.

110. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 110. 

111. Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the language of the Policy in 

paragraph 111. 

112. Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the language of the Policy in 

paragraph 112. 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 58 Filed 06/13/22 Page 12 of 22 PageID 3832
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF

JOHN DOE’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 13

HB: 4868-0142-7235.1

113. Defendant admits the first sentence of paragraph 113. Defendant admits that Judge 

Ruvolo drafted the Deliberative Report. Defendant admits Reece Harty testified that he had not 

read the Deliberative Report and that the Deliberative Report is not shared with panel members. 

Defendant denies Reece Harty testified that he did not review the Deliberative Report “despite the 

fact that it was intended to reflect their findings and conclusions.” 

114. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 114. 

115. Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the language of the 

Deliberative Report in paragraph 115.

116. Defendant admits the first sentence of paragraph 116. Defendant denies there are 

texts from Roe in which she admits that Doe did not rape her. Defendant denies the allegations in 

the third sentence of paragraph 116.

117. Defendant denies the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 117 and denies

Plaintiff’s interpretation and/or characterization of the remaining allegations in paragraph 117.

I. Disciplinary Process and Outcomes

118. Defendant admits that, as the penalty, the hearing panel suspended Doe “effective 

immediately” and stated that he is eligible to reenroll in classes for the 2023 Maymester but denies

that the Deliberative Report provides that such enrollment and acceptance is not guaranteed. 

Defendant admits the second sentence of paragraph 118.

119. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 119 and denies that the text messages 

at issue “exonerated” him.

120. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 120.

121. Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the language of the Policy 

but denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 121.

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 58 Filed 06/13/22 Page 13 of 22 PageID 3833
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF

JOHN DOE’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 14

HB: 4868-0142-7235.1

122. Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the language of the Policy in 

the first sentence of paragraph 122. Defendant denies the second sentence of paragraph 122. 

123. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 123.

124. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 124.

125. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 125.

126. Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the language of an email sent 

from Dr. Ledbetter in paragraph 126 but denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same.

127. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 127. 

J. Gender Bias in Favor of Women and Accusers of Sexual Assault

128. Defendant denies Jessica Ledbetter played an “active” role. Defendant denies the 

allegations in the second sentence of paragraph 128 as they are not based in truth, fact, or reality. 

Defendant further asserts that Plaintiff misconstrues and mischaracterizes Dr. Ledbetter’s 

dissertation, which is completely unrelated to the student conduct disciplinary matter at issue.

129. Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the language of Dr. 

Ledbetter’s dissertation—out of context—in paragraph 129 but denies Plaintiff’s characterization 

of the same. 

130. Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the language of Dr. 

Ledbetter’s dissertation—out of context—in paragraph 130 but denies Plaintiff’s characterization 

of the same. 

131. Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the language of Dr. 

Ledbetter’s dissertation in paragraph 131. 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 58 Filed 06/13/22 Page 14 of 22 PageID 3834
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF

JOHN DOE’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 15

HB: 4868-0142-7235.1

132. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 132. Defendant admits the remaining 

allegations in paragraph 132. 

133. Defendant admits the first sentence of paragraph 133. Defendant denies the 

remaining allegations in paragraph 133 and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

134. Defendant denies that Mr. Steidl did not explain why a no-contact order was being 

put in place and denies that Mr. Steidl “unilaterally” entered a no-contact order. Defendant admits

the remaining allegations in paragraph 134. 

135. Defendant admits the first sentence of paragraph 135. Defendant denies the second 

sentence of paragraph 135.

136. Defendant admits the first two sentences of paragraph 136. Defendant denies the 

remaining allegations in paragraph 136.

137. Defendant denies Dr. Ledbetter and Mr. Steidl played an “active” role in the student 

conduct disciplinary matter at issue. Defendant admits the remaining allegations in paragraph 137. 

138. Defendant denies the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 138 as they are 

not based in truth, fact, or reality. Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the 

language of tweets that were retweeted by Reece Harty in the second sentence of paragraph 138

but denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

139. Defendant denies that “Pancake Palooza” is “in support of CARE.” Defendant 

denies that CARE is an organization “severely biased in favor of accusers of sexual assault.” 

Defendant admits CARE indirectly provided training in the form of a video titled “The Dynamics 

of Trauma and Respondent Stress,” which the panel members watched as part of their training 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 58 Filed 06/13/22 Page 15 of 22 PageID 3835
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF

JOHN DOE’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 16

HB: 4868-0142-7235.1

with the Dean of Students Office before the hearing. Defendant admits the remaining allegations 

in paragraph 139. 

140. Defendant admits TCU does not have a voir dire-type procedure in place but denies

the remaining allegations in paragraph 140. 

141. Defendant denies the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 141 as they are 

not based in truth, fact, or reality. Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the 

language of TCU’s website in the remaining sentences of paragraph 141 but denies Plaintiff’s 

characterization of the same. 

142. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 142. 

143. Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the language of TCU’s 

website in paragraph 143 but denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

144. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 144. 

145. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 145 as they are not based in truth, 

fact, or reality. 

146. Defendant admits that universities like TCU should have departments like CARE 

to support victims of sexual assault, but denies that TCU’s policy is to “always believe the accuser 

regardless of the truth,” as this allegation is not based in truth, fact, or reality. Defendant denies

that the provided examples in paragraph 146 support such a contention. Defendant admits Plaintiff 

is quoting or paraphrasing the language of CARE posts and articles related to CARE in the 

remaining sentences of paragraph 146 but denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

147. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 147 as drafted. 

148. Defendant denies the first sentence of paragraph 148 as drafted. Defendant denies

the second sentence of paragraph 148. 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 58 Filed 06/13/22 Page 16 of 22 PageID 3836
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF

JOHN DOE’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 17

HB: 4868-0142-7235.1

149. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 149. 

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I: VIOLATION OF RIGHTS UNDER TITLE IX OF THE EDUCATION 

AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1972

150. Defendant responds to paragraph 150 by incorporating each of its responses to 

paragraphs 1 through 149 as set forth fully herein. 

151. Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the language of Title IX in 

paragraph 151. 

152. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 152. 

153. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 153. 

154. The allegations in paragraph 154 consist of Plaintiff’s legal conclusions to which 

no response is required. 

A. Erroneous Outcome

155. Defendant denies that any facts establish articulable doubt on the accuracy of the 

outcome of the disciplinary proceeding with respect to Allegation 1. Defendant admits the first 

sentence of subpart a of paragraph 155 but denies the remaining allegations in subpart a. 

Defendant admits Judge Ruvolo excluded evidence but denies the text messages were exculpatory 

and denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the remaining allegations in subpart b of paragraph 155. 

Defendant further asserts that Judge Ruvolo also excluded evidence submitted by Roe. Defendant 

is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in 

subpart e of paragraph 155. Defendant admits Roe claimed she only wanted to participate in sex 

with Doe about ten percent of the time but denies the remaining allegations in subpart m of 

paragraph 155. Defendant admits the allegations in subpart n of paragraph 155 but denies

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 58 Filed 06/13/22 Page 17 of 22 PageID 3837
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF

JOHN DOE’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 18

HB: 4868-0142-7235.1

Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 

155, including subparts c, d, f, g, i, j, k, l, o, p, and q. 

156. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 156, including subparts a through p. 

B. Selective Enforcement

157. Defendant denies that it does not publish or make available statistics or information 

regarding the outcome of Title IX violations involving alleged sexual misconduct, as required 

under current federal and state reporting regulations, including Texas Education Code § 51.253, 

but admits it does not publish statistics regarding the gender of complainants and respondents, 

which is not required under current federal or state reporting regulations. 

158. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 158. 

159. Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the language of the Policy in 

paragraph 159 but denies the allegation that Section IV.H.2 of the Policy “prohibits a complainant 

from filing a false complaint” as drafted.

160. Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the language of the Policy in 

paragraph 160. 

161. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 161. 

162. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 162. 

163. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 163. 

164. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 164. 

165. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 165. 

C. The Purdue Standard

166. The first sentence in paragraph 166 consists of Plaintiff’s legal conclusions to 

which no response is required. Defendant denies the second sentence in paragraph 166. 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 58 Filed 06/13/22 Page 18 of 22 PageID 3838
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF

JOHN DOE’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 19

HB: 4868-0142-7235.1

COUNT II: BREACH OF CONTRACT

167. Defendant responds to paragraph 167 by incorporating each of its responses to 

paragraphs 1 through 166 as set forth fully herein. 

168. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 168. 

169. Defendant admits Plaintiff is quoting or paraphrasing the language of the Bill of 

Rights, Code, and Policy in paragraph 169 but denies Plaintiff’s characterization of the same. 

170. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 170. 

171. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 171. 

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

172. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 172. 

173. The allegations in paragraph 173 consist of Plaintiff’s legal conclusions to which 

no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in 

paragraph 173 and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested therein. 

AFFIRMATIVE & OTHER DEFENSES

Defendants assert the following affirmative and other defenses, assuming no additional 

burden or any burden not placed on Defendants by the law, and assert that the defenses bar 

Plaintiff’s claims and/or right to recover—in whole or in part—the damages and relief alleged:

1. The First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

2. The First Amended Complaint fails to state any claim against Defendant Victor J. 

Boschini, Jr.

3. Some or all of the relief requested by Plaintiff is not available under the applicable 

statute and/or claims for relief.

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 58 Filed 06/13/22 Page 19 of 22 PageID 3839
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF

JOHN DOE’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 20

HB: 4868-0142-7235.1

4. TCU’s actions or inactions did not proximately cause any of the harm or damages 

that Plaintiff alleges.

5. If Plaintiff sustained harm or damages, they were caused, in whole or in part, by his 

own conduct or by the conduct of a third party.

6. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages, if any.

7. TCU did not exhibit gender bias with respect to the student conduct disciplinary 

matter at issue in this case.

8. Defendant denies that the Policy created a valid contract between Plaintiff and 

TCU. To the extent Plaintiff is claiming that an oral contract exists between the parties, which 

Defendant denies, Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim is barred, in whole or in part, by the statute 

of frauds.

Defendant denies all allegations in the First Amended Complaint not specifically admitted. 

Defendant reserves the right to amend, abate, and assert additional affirmative and other defenses, 

as necessary.

JURY DEMAND

Defendant demands a jury trial on all issues permitted to be tried by jury under the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure.

CONCLUSION

For all the reasons stated above, Defendant Texas Christian University requests the 

following relief that:

a. Plaintiff take nothing by his suit against Defendant;

b. Defendant be awarded its reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and costs of 

court against Plaintiff and his attorneys;

c. Defendant be awarded any other and further relief to which it may be justly entitled.

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 58 Filed 06/13/22 Page 20 of 22 PageID 3840
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF

JOHN DOE’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 21

HB: 4868-0142-7235.1

Dated: June 13, 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) 

 Alex E. Brakefield

 Texas Bar No. 24105523 

 alex.brakefield@huschblackwell.com

1900 N. Pearl Street, Suite 1800 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

(214) 999-6173 

(214) 999-6170 (fax) 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 58 Filed 06/13/22 Page 21 of 22 PageID 3841
DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF

JOHN DOE’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 22

HB: 4868-0142-7235.1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that this document was served on the below-listed counsel of record via the Court’s 

CM/ECF electronic filing system in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on 

June 13, 2022. 

Brian Roark 

brian@brianroark.com 

BOTSFORD & ROARK 

1307 West Avenue 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Telephone: (512) 476 – 1900 

Fax: (512) 479 – 8040 

Bryan D. Bruner 

bbruner@bjplaw.com 

Lynne B. Frank 

State Bar No. 24087215 

Lfrank@bjplaw.com 

BRUNER & BRUNER, P.C. 

3700 W. 7th Street 

Fort Worth, Texas 76107 

Telephone: (817) 332-6633 

Facsimile: (817) 332-6619 

H. Dustin Fillmore, III 

dusty@fillmorefirm.com 

THE FILLMORE LAW FIRM, L.L.P. 

201 Main Street, Suite 801 

Fort Worth, Texas 76102 

Telephone: (817) 332-2351 

/s/ Samuel P. Rajaratnam 

Samuel P. Rajaratnam

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 58 Filed 06/13/22 Page 22 of 22 PageID 3842