1

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

BRIAN GARRETT, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:18-cv-00692

Judge Michael H. Watson

Chief Magistrate Judge Deavers

____________________________________

STEVE SNYDER-HILL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

________________________________

Case No. 2:18-cv-00736

Judge Michael H. Watson

Chief Magistrate Judge Deavers

DEFENDANT THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY’S

RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S MAY 20, 2020 ORDER (DOC. 156) 

REGARDING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IN AMENDED COMPLAINTS

Defendant The Ohio State University (“Ohio State”) respectfully submits the following

response to the Court’s May 20, 2020 Order (Doc. 156 in Garrett) in the above-captioned actions: 

The Court’s May 20, 2020 Order directed plaintiffs in the above-captioned actions to file 

their amended complaints “temporarily under seal” “out of an abundance of caution” because of 

Ohio State’s “concern about Plaintiffs’ potential use of confidential information” in plaintiffs’

amended complaints. Order (Doc. 156 in Garrett) at 2. The May 20, 2020 Order also stated 

“Defendant will have FOURTEEN days from those filings to raise with Chief Magistrate Judge 

Deavers any issues relating to sealing,” and the “[t]he Amended Complaints shall remain sealed 

pending Chief Magistrate Judge Deavers’ rulings on any sealing issues, and she shall lift the seal 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 160 Filed: 06/10/20 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 1146
2

if Defendant fails to raise any issues within the fourteen-day period.” Id.

On May 27, 2020, plaintiffs in both of the above-captioned actions filed their amended 

complaints under seal. See Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Doc. 157 in Garrett); Second 

Amended Complaint (Doc. 123 in Snyder-Hill). Ohio State has reviewed both amended 

complaints filed under seal. While Ohio State does not believe the Garrett amended complaint 

(Doc. 157) contains confidential information, Ohio State has identified three paragraphs in the 

Snyder-Hill amended complaint (Doc. 123)—paragraphs 237, 238, and 247—it believes arguably 

allege confidential information protected from public disclosure by R.C. § 4731.22(F)(5) and is 

therefore bringing these three paragraphs to the Court’s attention out of an abundance of caution. 

By way of background, the State Medical Board of Ohio (the “Medical Board”) conducted 

investigations related to Dr. Strauss in 1996. R.C. § 4731.22(F)(5) establishes the confidentiality 

of these investigations. It provides that “a complaint, or information received by the board 

pursuant to an investigation . . . is confidential and not subject to discovery in any civil action.” 

Clarifying the scope of this confidentiality, Section 4731.22(F)(5) requires the Medical Board to 

protect the confidentiality of complainants, and specifically prohibits the Medical Board from 

“mak[ing] public the names or any other identifying information about [] complainants unless 

proper consent is given[.]” R.C. § 4731.22(F)(5) also authorizes the admission into evidence of 

confidential information in a judicial proceeding, but requires the court to take “appropriate 

measures . . . to ensure that confidentiality is maintained with respect to any part of the information 

that contains names or other identifying information about [] complainants whose confidentiality 

was protected by the state medical board when the information was in the board’s possession. 

Measures to ensure confidentiality that may be taken by the court include sealing its records or 

deleting specific information from its records.”

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 160 Filed: 06/10/20 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: 1147
3

The quote contained in paragraph 237 of the Snyder-Hill amended complaint is public 

information because it appears in the publicly available 1996 State Medical Board Report of 

Investigation. See https://governor.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/governor/media/news-andmedia/083019 at page 46. However, to Ohio State’s knowledge, the quote has not been publicly 

attributed to the individual named in paragraph 237 of the Snyder-Hill amended complaint because 

the individual’s name is redacted from the publicly available 1996 State Medical Board Report of 

Investigation. Id. at 46. Therefore, the attribution of the quote to the individual named in 

paragraph 237 is arguably confidential information protected from public disclosure by R.C. § 

4731.22(F)(5).

The quote contained in paragraph 238 of the Snyder-Hill amended complaint is from the 

deposition testimony of the individual named in paragraph 238 (who is the same individual named 

in paragraph 237). The named individual was expounding upon the quote in paragraph 237, 

discussed above. Therefore, paragraph 238 implicitly attributes the quote in paragraph 237 to the 

individual named in paragraph 238. The attribution of the quote in paragraph 237 to the individual 

named in paragraph 238 is arguably confidential information protected from public disclosure by 

R.C. § 4731.22(F)(5).

Finally, paragraph 247 of the Snyder-Hill amended complaint contains the same quote as 

paragraph 237. For the same reasons discussed above, the attribution of the quote to the individual 

named in paragraph 247 is arguably confidential information protected from public disclosure by

R.C. § 4731.22(F)(5).

Ohio State has previously sought full disclosure of the Medical Board file(s) related to Dr. 

Strauss. See Defendant The Ohio State University’s Motion and Reply in Support of Motion for 

Order Pursuant to R.C. 4731.22(F)(5) Regarding State Medical Board Files (Docs. 70 and 84 in 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 160 Filed: 06/10/20 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: 1148
4

Garrett). As previously discussed, R.C. § 4731.22(F)(5) authorizes public disclosure of names or 

other identifying information about complainants to the Medical Board only if proper consent is 

given. There is no indication here of such consent. 

Respectfully submitted,

DAVID A. YOST

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OHIO

By: /s/ Michael H. Carpenter

Michael H. Carpenter (0015733) (Trial Attorney)

Timothy R. Bricker (0061872)

David J. Barthel (0079307)

Stephen E. Dutton (0096064)

CARPENTER LIPPS AND LELAND LLP

280 Plaza, Suite 1300

280 North High Street

Columbus, OH 43215

E-mail:carpenter@carpenterlipps.com

bricker@carpenterlipps.com

barthel@carpenterlipps.com

dutton@carpenterlipps.com

Special Counsel for Defendant 

The Ohio State University

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 160 Filed: 06/10/20 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: 1149
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically on June 10, 2020. Notice was 

sent by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system to all other counsel who have entered an 

appearance and any parties who have entered an appearance through counsel. The parties may 

access this filing through the Court’s ECF system. 

/s/ Michael H. Carpenter

Trial Attorney for Defendant

The Ohio State University

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 160 Filed: 06/10/20 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: 1150