1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN (COLUMBUS) DIVISION

Brian Garrett, et al., 

individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Civil Case 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD

The Ohio State University, Judge Michael H. Watson

 

Defendant. Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION

Michael Alf, et al.,

individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Civil Case: 2:21-cv-02542-MHW-EPD1

 

The Ohio State University, Judge Michael H. Watson

Defendant. Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

CLASS ACTION

PLAINTIFFS’ CONSOLIDATED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECUSAL 

AND TO TRANSFER VENUE WITHIN THE DISTRICT PER 28 U.S.C. § 1404(b)

1 The captioned cases are related to Cases No. 18-cv-736-MHW-EPD; 19-cv-2462-MHW-EPD, 

19-cv-4746-MHW-EPD, 19-mc-38, 20-cv-3817-MHW-EPD, 21-cv-2120-MHW-EPD, 21-cv2121-MHW-EPD, 21-cv-2527-MHW-EPD, 21-cv-2542-MHW-EPD, 21-cv-2562-MHW-EPD, 

21-cv-3838-MHW-EPD, 21-cv-4254-MHW-EPD, and 21-cv-4340-MHW-EPD. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 195 Filed: 09/21/21 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 1467
2

There is no reading of 28 U.S.C. § 455 that allows Judge Watson to continue to oversee 

this case. Rather than acknowledge that black-letter law requires the Court’s disqualification under 

the circumstances, OSU’s over-the-top response – largely an ad hominem attack on Plaintiffs’ 

counsel and a public relations effort – epitomizes its approach to this litigation as a whole: despite 

repeatedly vowing to “do the right thing,” at every juncture OSU has consistently done just the 

opposite. Even now, its response desperately seeks to keep a judge who, under the law and the 

canons of judicial ethics, must recuse. 

Judge Watson is no doubt an honorable, capable, and qualified jurist. But not for this case.

Litigants must be able to depend upon judges and fact finders to be disinterested and unbiased 

when deciding matters related to a lawsuit. Impartiality is so critical that Congress prohibits even

the appearance of impropriety as an objective requirement for the judiciary. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).

Both parties here, like all parties, are entitled to a neutral judge, one who has no disqualifying 

connections – actual or apparent, direct or indirect – to one of the litigants before it. 

OSU avoids this fundamental tenet of the American civil justice system, however, and 

instead attempts to smear counsel and non-settling survivors in its filing, accusing them of making 

an “unwarranted attack” on the judiciary, highlighting rulings that have, in OSU’s view,

“benefitted Plaintiffs,” and by arguing that any conflict was waived early on by Plaintiffs’ failure 

to seek recusal upon the Court’s initial disclosure in January 2019 that the Court (Watson, J.) 

worked as adjunct faculty and was then teaching at OSU’s law school. 

The fact is, at the initial hearing on January 17, 2019, Judge Watson did not simply disclose 

his potential conflict and inquire if the parties would prefer to have a judge with no connections to 

either party. Instead, Judge Watson disclosed his conflict and informed the parties that “every 

member of th[e] bench” had similar conflicts, and that he intended to stay on the case. Doc. 52,

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 195 Filed: 09/21/21 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: 1468
3

Jan. 2019 Hrg. Tr. at 3:22-24. Regardless, and even if Plaintiffs’ failure to raise an issue then 

constituted a waiver, Judge Watson only recently disclosed that his wife also had a business 

relationship with OSU and that such relationship pre-existed the litigation and continues today. 

Doc. 191, Sept. 2021 Hrg. Tr. at 8:20-21, 9:11-15. Credible news reports, first published in 

September 2021, suggest that both Judge Watson and his wife are being paid by the Defendant in 

this case, and an OSU spokesperson quoted in these reports confirms the same. See Docs. 193-3, 

193-4. 

Can a judge who, along with his wife, is being paid by one litigant, sit in judgment of 

another? This question has already been answered by Congress, and the answer is a resounding 

“No.” 28 U.S.C. § 455. Plaintiffs here, as well as Defendant, are entitled to have their case heard 

and decided by a judge with no disqualifying connections to either party. Such judges exist within 

this district. And in the interest of justice this case should be transferred to one of them. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/ Simina Vourlis____________

Simina Vourlis 

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

Larkin Walsh

Sarah T. Bradshaw

SHARP LAW, LLP

5301 W. 75th Street

Prairie Village, KS 66208

(913) 901-0505

(913) 901-0419 fax

rsharp@midwest-law.com 

lwalsh@midwest-law.com 

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 195 Filed: 09/21/21 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: 1469
4

sbradshaw@midwest-law.com

Robert Allard

CORSIGLIA, MCMAHON AND ALLARD, LLP

96 North Third Street, Suite 620

San Jose, CA 95112

(408) 289-1417

(408) 289-8127 fax

rallard@cmalaw.net

Stephen Estey

ESTEY & BOMBERGER LLP 

2869 India Street

San Diego, CA 92103 

619-295-0035

619-295-0172 fax

steve@estey-bomberger.com

Daniel R. Karon (#0069304) 

KARON LLC 

700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200 

Cleveland, OH 44113 

Tel.: 216.622.1851 

dkaron@karonllc.com

Joseph Sauder

SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC

1109 Lancaster Avenue

Berwyn, PA 19312

(610) 200-0580

(610) 421-1326

jgs@sstriallawyers.com

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 195 Filed: 09/21/21 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: 1470
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

It is hereby certified that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was filed and 

served, via the Court’s CM/ECF system on September 21, 2021, on all counsel of record.

By: /s/ Simina Vourlis___________

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 195 Filed: 09/21/21 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: 1471