THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

STEVE SNYDER-HILL, et al., ) Case No. 2:18-cv-00736

)

 Plaintiffs, ) Judge Michael H. Watson

)

v. ) Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. 

) Deavers

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, )

)

 Defendant. )

________________________________________ )

DEFENDANT THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY’S COMBINED RESPONSE IN 

OPPOSITION TO (1) THE SNYDER-HILL PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AMEND AND 

TO FILE UNDER SEAL AND (2) THE SNYDER-HILL PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO CORRECT FILING

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

combined response in opposition to (1) The Snyder-Hill Plaintiffs’ Motion To Amend And To File 

Under Seal, Doc. 101 (the “Motion to Amend”) and (2) The Snyder-Hill Plaintiffs’ Motion For 

Leave To Correct Filing, Doc. 103 (the “Motion to Correct”). 

The Motion to Amend states that Ohio State “does not consent to amendment.” See Motion 

to Amend at 1. This is not entirely accurate. Ohio State agreed to consent to complaint

amendments adding new plaintiffs because such amendments would assist with mediation efforts. 

Ohio State currently does not oppose amendments to add new plaintiffs (and allegations specific 

to those new plaintiffs) to the complaints in any of the current Strauss-related cases.

The Snyder-Hill plaintiffs’ proposed Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), however, adds

zero new plaintiffs. Contrary to the prior representations of plaintiffs’ counsel, the plaintiffs in 

this case now purport to seek leave to add approximately 13 pages to their FAC to: (i) make public 

allegations relating to plaintiffs Melvin Robinson and Douglas Wells, who previously were 

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 106 Filed: 12/09/19 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 1937
2

identified in the FAC as John Doe 1 and John Doe 211, respectively; (ii) provide new allegations 

about Strauss’ conduct relating to 16 plaintiffs who also were previously identified as plaintiffs in

the FAC (in reality, the allegations are not just new, but plaintiffs have completely re-written them 

in a manner that is inconsistent with and/or directly contradicts prior allegations); and (iii) add

other allegations to reflect additional information plaintiffs have allegedly learned about Ohio 

State’s culpability. The proposed amendments are improper for several reasons. 

First, the proposed amendments are untimely and prejudicial to Ohio State and the 300+ 

other plaintiffs who have been mediating in good faith for the last six months. The vast majority 

of the proposed amendments alleging what Strauss did to these 16 previously identified plaintiffs 

at least twenty years ago, and the harm they allegedly experienced as a result, is information that 

was already available to plaintiffs at the time they filed their original Complaint on July 26, 2018, 

and their FAC on November 13, 2018. Both prior complaints set forth detailed allegations specific 

to each plaintiff’s experience with Strauss and the harm incurred, all of which plaintiffs were aware 

of at the time of the conduct. Ohio State, the mediator, and the 300+ other plaintiffs in the related 

cases have relied upon those these allegations during the mediation proceedings.

Additionally, and more troubling, most of the proposed amendments relating to the 16 

previously identified plaintiffs are not merely “additional details” about what Strauss did to these 

plaintiffs (as plaintiffs inaccurately characterize them, see Motion to Amend at 2), but instead 

consist of proposed deletions and additions that are inconsistent with and/or directly contradict 

plaintiffs’ prior allegations. Multiple plaintiffs have materially changed the nature of the abuse 

they allegedly endured and the harm they allegedly suffered, and other plaintiffs have deleted 

 

1 Plaintiffs’ SAC states that Douglas Wells was previously listed as John Doe 22 in the FAC, but Douglas Wells’ 

allegations in the SAC align with the allegations of John Doe 21 in the FAC.

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 106 Filed: 12/09/19 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: 1938
3

certain allegations relating to their knowledge of the abuse at the time it occurred. These 

discrepancies raise questions and undermine mediation efforts. They should not be allowed. 

Finally, the proposed amendments are fundamentally inconsistent with the Court’s prior 

directive, repeated numerous times throughout the course of these proceedings, “encourag[ing] the 

parties to focus their efforts on mediation, and any discovery pursued should be narrowly tailored 

for the purposes of mediation.” See Garrett, Case No. 2:18-cv-692, Doc. 90 at 2. None of the 

proposed amendments assists with mediation efforts. The Snyder-Hill plaintiffs already amended 

their Complaint over a year ago, and the parties have been actively mediating for the past six 

months. It is improper for these plaintiffs to amend their Complaint, again, at this stage of 

litigation – especially given that Ohio State’s motion to dismiss the FAC is fully briefed and ready 

for the Court’s decision, if and when the mediation with these plaintiffs were to reach an impasse. 

See Order, Case No. 2:18-cv-692, Doc. 108 at 2 (“Defendant may renew the motions [to dismiss] 

if mediation ultimately proves unsuccessful.”).

For the foregoing reasons, the Snyder-Hill plaintiffs’ latest proposed amended complaint 

should be denied.

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 106 Filed: 12/09/19 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: 1939
4

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)

Jennifer A.L. Battle (0085761)

Stephen E. Dutton (0096064)

CARPENTER LIPPS AND LELAND LLP

280 Plaza, Suite 1300

280 North High Street

Columbus, OH 43215

Telephone: (614) 365-4100

Facsimile: (614) 365-9145

E-mail:carpenter@carpenterlipps.com

bricker@carpenterlipps.com

battle@carpenterlipps.com

barthel@carpenterlipps.com

dutton@carpenterlipps.com

Special Counsel for Defendant The Ohio State 

University

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 106 Filed: 12/09/19 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: 1940
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically on December 9, 2019. 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 fling through the Court’s ECF system.

/s/ Michael H. Carpenter

Trial Attorney for

Defendant The Ohio State University

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 106 Filed: 12/09/19 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: 1941