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 Elizabeth P. 

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 Elizabeth P. 

Deavers 

 ) 

 

MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS TO PERMIT LIMITED DISCOVERY DEPOSITIONS 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), the Snyder-Hill Plaintiffs and the Garrett Plaintiffs 

respectfully move this Court for an Order permitting limited discovery to conduct the depositions 

of Andy Geiger, Dr. Manuel Tzagournis, Doris Charles, and Russ Hellickson. We conferred 

with Defendant, which has stated it will oppose the motion. The reasons for granting this Motion 

are more fully set forth in the attached Memorandum in Support. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

DATED: October 15, 2020 EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF 

ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP 

 By: /s/ Ilann M. Maazel 

 Ilann M. Maazel (admitted pro hac vice) 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 173 Filed: 10/15/20 Page: 1 of 13 PAGEID #: 1261
2 

 Debra L. Greenberger (admitted pro hac vice) 

Marissa R. Benavides (admitted pro hac vice) 

600 Fifth Avenue 

New York, New York 10020 

Phone: (212) 763-5000 

Fax: (212) 763-5001 

E-Mail: imaazel@ecbawm.com 

 E-Mail: dgreenberger@ecbawm.com 

 E-Mail: mbenavides@ecbawm.com 

SCOTT ELLIOTT SMITH, LPA 

Scott E. Smith (0003749) 

Michael L. Dillard, Jr. (0083907) 

5003 Horizons Drive, Suite 100 

Columbus, Ohio 43220 

Phone: (614) 846-1700 

Fax: (614) 486-4987 

E-Mail: ses@sestraillaw.com 

E-Mail: mld@sestriallaw.com 

Adele P. Kimmel (admitted pro hac vice) 

Alexandra Z. Brodsky (admitted pro hac vice) 

 PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C. 

 1620 L Street, NW, Suite 

 630 Washington, DC 20036 

 Phone: (202) 797-8600 

 Fax: (202) 232-7203 

 E-mail: akimmel@publicjustice.net 

 Attorneys for Snyder-Hill Plaintiffs 

 Case No. 2:18-cv-00736 

 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 173 Filed: 10/15/20 Page: 2 of 13 PAGEID #: 1262
3 

/s/ Simina Vourlis by /s/ per email authorization 

(Oct. 15, 2020) 

Simina Vourlis (0046689) (Trial Attorney) 

The Law Office of Simina Vourlis 

856 Pullman Way 

Columbus, OH 43212 

(614) 487-5900 

(614) 487-5901 fax 

svourlis@vourlislaw.com 

Rex A. Sharp (admitted pro hac vice) 

Ryan C. Hudson (admitted pro hac vice) 

Larkin Walsh (admitted pro hac vice) 

Sarah T. Bradshaw (admitted pro hac vice) 

SHARP LAW, LLP 

5301 W. 75th Street 

Prairie Village, KS 66208 

(913) 901-0505 

(913) 901-0419 fax 

rsharp@midwest-law.com 

rhudson@midwest-law.com 

lwalsh@midwest-law.com 

sbradshaw@midwest-law.com

Attorneys for Garrett Plaintiffs 

Case No. 2:18-cv-00692 

 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 173 Filed: 10/15/20 Page: 3 of 13 PAGEID #: 1263
4 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The Perkins Coie report (the “Report”)1

 points to several witnesses who possess 

information relevant to the above-captioned cases. These witnesses are of advanced age. Delay 

in subpoenaing these witnesses for their depositions is likely to prejudice Plaintiffs as the 

witnesses may become unavailable or incapable of testifying to the facts that they possess. As a 

result, Plaintiffs move this Court for an Order permitting Plaintiffs to immediately subpoena and 

depose five witnesses identified in the Report to preserve their testimony. These witnesses are 

Andy Geiger (age 81); Dr. Manuel Tzagournis (age 85); Doris Charles (age 90); and Russ 

Hellickson (age 72) (“Preservation Witnesses”). Each is likely to have information concerning 

OSU’s knowledge of and deliberate indifference to Strauss’s abuse. 

These depositions will preserve evidence and prevent the risk of permanently losing 

crucial testimony. Doing so will also serve the public interest by providing further public 

transparency about OSU’s role in Strauss’s abuse, a goal OSU has professed to share. 

OSU should support this motion, consistent with its repeated public statements, espoused 

in its motion to this Court, that it wants a full investigation and wants the public to know the full 

story. For example, former OSU President Michael V. Drake repeatedly touted that OSU was 

dedicated to uncovering the truth. In late 2019, he stated: “The university remains dedicated to 

integrity, transparency and trust—values that guide our campus community each day. This 

commitment extends fully to the investigation of abuse committed by Strauss.”2

 Perkins Coie 

1

 Relevant excerpts of the Report cited herein are attached hereto as Exhibit A (“Report”). 

2 A Message from President Drake: Strauss Investigation Update, The Ohio State University, Office of the President 

(Oct. 1, 2019), https://news.osu.edu/strauss-investigation-ohio-state-convenes-task-force-releases-previouslyredacted-portions-of-independent-report/; see also Dkt. 52 (seeking Order permitting the public release of those 

portions of the Report based on information from files obtained from the State Medical Board of Ohio). Unless 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 173 Filed: 10/15/20 Page: 4 of 13 PAGEID #: 1264
5 

did not interview some of these Preservation Witnesses. Nor did Perkins Coie have the benefit 

of the information Plaintiffs have learned from subsequent witnesses and other Strauss survivors. 

And the interviews conducted by Perkins Coie, though informative, are not sworn. This Court 

has the power to require the witnesses to provide formal testimony, and OSU should join 

Plaintiffs in asking the Court to exercise that power to promptly uncover the whole truth. 

In its April 17, 2020 Order, the Court made clear that non-settling parties, such as 

Plaintiffs, should proceed on a dual track of litigation and mediation. Dkt. 151. Since then, OSU 

filed a motion to dismiss, which all Plaintiffs have opposed. Dkts. 128, 133, 135. OSU has not 

sought to stay discovery in light of its motion, and the Court denied its prior stay motion. Dkt. 

70. Nonetheless, in recognition of the Court’s role in supervising discovery in this matter during 

the pendency of the motions to dismiss and to avoid unnecessary disputes after serving a nonparty subpoena, Plaintiffs formally move for permission to depose these Preservation Witnesses. 

II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

A. The Court Permits Discovery Relevant and Tailored for Purposes of Mediation. 

The Garrett action was filed on July 16, 2018, and the Snyder-Hill action was filed on 

July 26, 2018. Defendant moved to dismiss both actions as untimely. Dkt. 34. Plaintiffs 

opposed the motions, explaining that Plaintiffs’ Title IX claims were timely filed under both the 

federal discovery rule and Ohio’s equitable tolling doctrine. Dkt. 40. 

On October 12, 2018, Defendants sought a stay of discovery pending the resolution of the 

motion to dismiss. Dkt. 25. Plaintiffs opposed that motion because OSU had not shown good 

cause to stay discovery, the motion to dismiss is not “virtually certain” to succeed, and the 

limited discovery proposed by the Plaintiffs at that point—before the issuance of the Perkins 

otherwise noted, all docket references are to the filings in Snyder-Hill et. al. v. OSU, 18-00736. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 173 Filed: 10/15/20 Page: 5 of 13 PAGEID #: 1265
6 

Coie Report—was not unduly burdensome. See Boddie v. PNC Bank, NA, No. 2:12-cv-158, 

2012 WL 4088683, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 17, 2012) (citation omitted). Plaintiffs further argued 

that societal interests strongly favor proceeding with at least some discovery as the case raises 

matters of statewide and national concern. Dkt. 26. 

On March 15, 2019, the Court ordered the parties to mediation before Senior United 

States District Judge Michael R. Barrett. 

On May 24, 2019, the Court denied OSU’s motions to stay discovery and ordered, at that 

time, that “any discovery pursued should be narrowly tailored for the purposes of mediation. The 

Court will hold a preliminary pretrial conference to establish case deadlines after the parties have 

exhausted their efforts at mediation.” Dkt. 70. 

On July 26, 2019, while mediation efforts proceeded, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for 

Clarification of the Court’s May 24, 2019 Order Permitting Discovery. Dkt. 81. The Motion 

sought to take a limited number of depositions of individuals who had not cooperated and/or 

been interviewed by Perkins Coie. OSU opposed the Motion and sought a status conference. 

Dkt. 83. The Court issued an Order permitting the limited discovery sought by Plaintiffs. Dkt. 

90. 

Those six depositions provided significant additional information relevant to OSU’s 

indifference to Strauss’s abuse of hundreds of young men. Plaintiffs amended their complaints 

accordingly. OSU sought to conceal that deposition testimony from the public. Dkt. 154. The 

Court denied OSU’s request. Dkt. 156. 

On April 17, 2020, after receiving a report from the Mediator, the Court issued an Order 

directing the non-settling Plaintiffs, including all Plaintiffs herein, to proceed simultaneously on 

a dual track focusing on litigation and mediation. Dkt. 151. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 173 Filed: 10/15/20 Page: 6 of 13 PAGEID #: 1266
7 

On July 7, 2020, OSU moved to dismiss the above-captioned cases, and Plaintiffs 

opposed those motions on August 4, 2020. Dkts. 162, 169. OSU has not sought a stay of 

discovery. 

B. A Number of Witnesses of Advanced Age Possess Crucial Information. 

The Perkins Coie Report identified people who “might have information relevant to 

determining the ‘University’s knowledge’ of Strauss sexual abuse of student-patients.” Report at 

16. As detailed in Plaintiffs’ Complaints, Plaintiffs are aware of a number of witnesses with 

knowledge of Strauss’s abuse and OSU’s deliberate indifference. Plaintiffs identified four 

witnesses of advanced age who occupied key positions at OSU during the time Strauss was 

committing his atrocious acts. These four witnesses are likely to have information crucial to 

Plaintiffs’ cases, information which, if lost, would prejudice the Plaintiffs. The four witnesses 

are: 

 Andy Geiger, OSU’s Athletic Director, 1994-2005 (age 81). See Report at 88. 

According to the Report, Mr. Geiger said he was notified of at least two student 

complaints about sexual assaults by Strauss during medical examinations. See id. at pp. 

88-89, 91. See also Dkt. 123 (Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”)) ¶¶ 172, 2566. Mr. 

Geiger also acknowledged that an unidentified coach, identified as “Coach A” in the 

Report, repeatedly raised concerns about the predatory environment at Larkins Hall, 

including, acts of voyeurism, public sex activity, and issues with communal showers. See 

Report at 167-68. Mr. Geiger confirmed that he considered several possible responses, 

from allowing Coach A’s team to practice at another facility to instituting certain 

procedures to protect the safety and privacy of the student athletes. See id. Mr. Geiger 

conceded to Perkins Coie that he took no such actions. See id. Finally, Mr. Geiger was 

the Athletic Director at OSU when Strauss’s employment at OSU ended, and as such, 

likely has knowledge about Strauss’s termination/non-renewal. 

 Dr. Manuel Tzagournis, OSU’s Vice President of Health Sciences and Academic Affairs, 

1979-1999 (age 85). See Report at 151. According to the Report, Strauss met with 

Ronald St. Pierre (OSU’s Vice Dean and Secretary for the College of Medicine and 

Associate Vice President of Health Sciences and Academic Affairs) to discuss the 

disciplinary hearing against Strauss. See id. Mr. St. Pierre told Strauss that he would 

discuss the matter with Mr. Tzagournis, and that they (and OSU) would have no problem 

with Strauss still engaging in part-time private medical practice and retaining his tenure 

at OSU. See id. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 173 Filed: 10/15/20 Page: 7 of 13 PAGEID #: 1267
8 

 Doris Charles, OSU’s Student Health Director, 1981-1990 (age 90). See Report at 115. 

According to the Report, in 1982, after OSU’s Student Health Center’s Sports Medicine 

Clinic, Dr. David Henderson, drafted a derogatory report about the quality of medical 

care provided to OSU student-athletes, Ms. Charles substantially revised the report, 

largely eliminating Dr. Henderson’s criticisms, including his statement that Strauss 

“works for no one, answers to no one, and is accountable to no one.” See id. at 116. 

Additionally, according to the Report, a member of OSU’s Student Health nursing staff, 

identified as “Nurse A,” reported that she escalated concerns about Strauss’s lack of 

adherence to scheduling and recordkeeping protocols with student-patients to Ms. 

Charles, but Ms. Charles dismissed the concerns and took no action. See id. at 120; SAC 

¶ 184. 

 Russ Hellickson, OSU’s Wrestling Coach, 1986-2006 (age 72). Though not identified in 

the Report, Mr. Hellickson was the head coach for the OSU men’s wrestling team, a team 

whose athletes were among those most affected by Strauss’s misconduct. Multiple OSU 

coaches talked to Perkins Coie about their interactions with Strauss and knowledge of his 

conduct as it related to their teams. See Report at 111-13. Mr. Hellickson described the 

toxic culture at OSU as a “cesspool of deviancy” and recalled, “[c]oaching my athletes in 

Larkins Hall was one of the most difficult things I ever did.” SAC ¶ 215. He claimed to 

have dragged voyeurs out of Larkins Hall and pled to OSU to move his athletes to 

another building. Id. ¶ 216. Multiple survivors have named Mr. Hellickson as someone 

aware of student discomfort with Strauss. Id. ¶¶ 1260, 1410, 1817. Survivors have 

claimed that Mr. Hellickson was present while athletes discussed Strauss’ abuse. Id. ¶ 

1423. At least one survivor has alleged that he spoke to Mr. Hellickson directly about the 

issue. Id. ¶¶ 1436, 1817, 1951, 2566. There are also allegations that Mr. Hellickson 

contacted some of his former players to ask them to recant stories.3

 

The Perkins Coie Report does not reveal the identity of many witnesses. Undoubtedly 

there will be more Preservation Witnesses with highly relevant information whose testimony 

needs to be preserved. But these four provide a reasonable start to uncovering the full story of 

Strauss’s misconduct and OSU’s involvement in permitting that misconduct. 

III. ARGUMENT 

There is a strong presumption under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that discovery 

will proceed during the pendency of a motion to dismiss. Absent a “virtual certainty” that OSU 

3 See William Saletan, Crossing Jordan, Slate (Aug. 2, 2018, 2:33 pm), https://slate.com/newsand-politics/2018/08/rep-jim-jordan-is-trying-to-silence-the-former-students-who-have-accusedhim-of-knowing-about-sexual-abuse.html.

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 173 Filed: 10/15/20 Page: 8 of 13 PAGEID #: 1268
9 

will prevail on its motion to dismiss, discovery should not be stayed. See Boddie, No. 2:12-cv158, 2012 WL 4088683, at *2 (citation omitted); Osman v. Mission Essential Pers., LLC, No. 

2:11-cv-577, 2012 WL 1831706, at *2 (S.D. Ohio May 18, 2012). 

The Court’s denial of Defendant’s stay motion on May 24, 2019 conformed with these 

principles. Dkt. 70. Though mediation and motions to dismiss are currently pending, Plaintiffs 

do not seek full discovery at this point. But recognizing the Court’s directive that litigation 

continue simultaneously with mediation, Dkt. 151, Plaintiffs must proceed with the Preservation 

Witness depositions or risk losing crucial testimony as witnesses become unavailable to testify. 

Deposing four of the Preservation Witnesses will support the resolution of this action, preserve 

testimony from witnesses who might otherwise become unavailable, and impose little burden. 

A. Courts Routinely Refuse to Delay Depositions Where There Is a Risk the 

Deponent Will Become Unavailable 

The Perkins Coie Report identified numerous OSU witnesses with information Perkins 

Coie considered highly probative to OSU’s knowledge of and response to Strauss’ serial abuse. 

But their testimony is not under oath, as Perkins Coie did not have the power to compel anyone’s 

testimony. 

Plaintiffs seek to depose the Preservation Witnesses to ensure that no further witnesses 

will join those who have already passed away (sixty people, by the Report’s count) or lose their 

ability to give meaningful testimony. The events at issue began in the late 1970s. Those who 

were middle-aged then are now elderly. Even during the pendency of this case, important 

witnesses have died, including Jim Jones, OSU’s Athletic Director in the 1980s and 1990s, who 

died on April 22, 2020 at age 83. See SAC ¶¶ 172, 2566. And David Williams II, OSU’s Vice 

President of Student Affairs, died in February 2019. Mr. Williams, in conjunction with OSU’s 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 173 Filed: 10/15/20 Page: 9 of 13 PAGEID #: 1269
10 

general counsel, convened a disciplinary hearing against Strauss in June 1996. See SAC ¶¶ 6, 

227, 2566. 

Courts repeatedly permit depositions of those who are elderly or facing health 

complications. See In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litig., No. 1:02-CV-0844, 2002 WL 31988168, 

at *5 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 7, 2002) (denying discovery stay due to concerns about “witnesses 

becoming unavailable” because “several of the potential witnesses are elderly”); Emsat 

Advanced Geo-Location Tech., LLC v. Cellco P’ship, No. 4:08-CV-816, 2009 WL 10690283, at 

*2 (N.D. Ohio May 22, 2009) (“a stay may prejudice Plaintiffs’ ability to offer testimony from 

certain witnesses given the age and health of those witnesses”). 

OSU hid Strauss’ serial abuse for some four decades. Any further delay risks prejudicing 

the Plaintiffs’ case even further. In addition, as OSU previously agreed, the public has a strong 

interest in learning how and to what extent this major public university facilitated an employee’s 

serial sexual abuse of university students for two decades. Deposing the Preservation Witnesses 

is essential to a fuller understanding of OSU’s culpability. 

B. The Depositions Plaintiffs Seek are Not Unduly Burdensome 

From the Report, Plaintiffs have currently identified just four OSU Preservation 

Witnesses whose testimony is material and necessary at this stage in the case. Four depositions 

are not unduly burdensome in the context of one of the largest sex abuse scandals in U.S. history. 

OSU spent $6 million to hire Perkins Coie to investigate this matter. Perkins Coie conducted 

600 interviews of 520 people—none under oath. Report at 18. Questioning four more witnesses 

is not unduly burdensome and will serve to preserve key testimony. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Deposing four former OSU employees who are of advanced age will preserve key 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 173 Filed: 10/15/20 Page: 10 of 13 PAGEID #: 1270
11 

testimony that otherwise risks being lost. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court permit 

these depositions to proceed immediately. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

DATED: October 15, 2020 EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF 

ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP 

 By: /s/ Ilann M. Maazel 

 Ilann M. Maazel (admitted pro hac vice) 

 Debra L. Greenberger (admitted pro hac vice) 

Marissa R. Benavides (admitted pro hac vice) 

600 Fifth Avenue 

New York, New York 10020 

Phone: (212) 763-5000 

Fax: (212) 763-5001 

E-Mail: imaazel@ecbawm.com 

 E-Mail: dgreenberger@ecbawm.com 

 E-Mail: mbenavides@ecbawm.com 

SCOTT ELLIOTT SMITH, LPA 

Scott E. Smith (0003749) 

Michael L. Dillard, Jr. (0083907) 

5003 Horizons Drive, Suite 100 

Columbus, Ohio 43220 

Phone: (614) 846-1700 

Fax: (614) 486-4987 

E-Mail: ses@sestraillaw.com 

E-Mail: mld@sestriallaw.com 

Adele P. Kimmel (admitted pro hac vice) 

Alexandra Z. Brodsky (admitted pro hac vice) 

 PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C. 

 1620 L Street, NW, Suite 

 630 Washington, DC 20036 

 Phone: (202) 797-8600 

 Fax: (202) 232-7203 

 E-mail: akimmel@publicjustice.net 

 Attorneys for Snyder-Hill Plaintiffs 

 Case No. 2:18-cv-00736 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 173 Filed: 10/15/20 Page: 11 of 13 PAGEID #: 1271
12 

/s/ Simina Vourlis by /s/ per email authorization 

(Oct. 15, 2020) 

Simina Vourlis (0046689) (Trial Attorney) 

The Law Office of Simina Vourlis 

856 Pullman Way 

Columbus, OH 43212 

(614) 487-5900 

(614) 487-5901 fax 

svourlis@vourlislaw.com 

Rex A. Sharp (admitted pro hac vice) 

Ryan C. Hudson (admitted pro hac vice) 

Larkin Walsh (admitted pro hac vice) 

Sarah T. Bradshaw (admitted pro hac vice) 

SHARP LAW, LLP 

5301 W. 75th Street 

Prairie Village, KS 66208 

(913) 901-0505 

(913) 901-0419 fax 

rsharp@midwest-law.com 

rhudson@midwest-law.com 

lwalsh@midwest-law.com 

sbradshaw@midwest-law.com

Attorneys for Garrett Plaintiffs 

Case No. 2:18-cv-00692 

 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 173 Filed: 10/15/20 Page: 12 of 13 PAGEID #: 1272
13 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

A copy of this document was served by the Court’s ECF System on all counsel of record 

on October 15, 2020, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E). 

 /s/ Ilann M. Maazel 

 Ilann M. Maazel 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 173 Filed: 10/15/20 Page: 13 of 13 PAGEID #: 1273