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., ) Case No. 2:18-cv-00736

)

 Plaintiffs, ) Judge Michael H. Watson

)

v. ) Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. 

) Deavers

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, )

)

 Defendant. )

________________________________________ )

)

NICHOLAS NUTTER, et al. ) Case No. 2:19-cv-02462

)

Plaintiffs, ) Judge Michael H. Watson

)

v. ) Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P.

) Deavers

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, )

)

Defendant. )

________________________________________ )

)

ROCKY RATLIFF, ) Case No. 2:19-cv-04746

)

 Plaintiff, ) Judge Michael H. Watson

)

v. ) Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P.

) Deavers

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, )

)

Defendant. )

________________________________________ )

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 177 Filed: 07/14/23 Page: 1 of 25 PAGEID #: 2926
JOHN DOES 151-166, )

) Case No. 2:20-cv-03817

Plaintiffs, )

) Judge Michael H. Watson

v. )

) Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. 

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, ) Deavers

)

Defendant. )

________________________________________ )

)

JOHN DOES 172-191 AND JANE DOE 1, ) Case No. 2:21-cv-02121

)

Plaintiffs, ) Judge Michael H. Watson

)

v. ) Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P.

) Deavers

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, )

)

Defendant. )

________________________________________ )

)

JOHN DOES 192-217, )

) Case No. 2:21-cv-02527

Plaintiffs, )

) Judge Michael H. Watson

v. )

) Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P.

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, ) Deavers

)

Defendant. )

________________________________________ )

)

MICHAEL ALF, et al., )

) Case No. 2:21-cv-02542

Plaintiffs, )

) Judge Michael H. Watson

v. )

) Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P.

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, ) Deavers

)

Defendant. )

________________________________________ )

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 177 Filed: 07/14/23 Page: 2 of 25 PAGEID #: 2927
DR. MICHAEL B. CANALES, et al., )

) Case No. 2:21-cv-02562

Plaintiffs, )

) Judge Michael H. Watson

v. )

) Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P.

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, ) Deavers

)

Defendant. )

________________________________________ )

)

TIMOTHY MOXLEY, et al., )

) Case No. 2:21-cv-03838

Plaintiffs, )

) Judge Michael H. Watson

v. )

) Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P.

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, ) Deavers

)

Defendant. )

________________________________________ )

)

JOHN DOE, )

) Case No. 2:23-cv-01048

Plaintiff, )

) Judge Michael H. Watson

v. )

) Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P.

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, ) Deavers

)

Defendant. )

________________________________________ )

JOINT NOTICE

The parties in the above-captioned actions submit this Joint Notice pursuant to the Court’s 

order at the July 6, 2023 status conference directing the parties to file a joint notice providing the 

Court with the following information: (1) which cases remain; (2) which plaintiffs remain in each 

case; (3) which claims were revived by the Sixth Circuit; (4) whether plaintiffs are pursuing postassault or pre-assault/heightened risk theories of Title IX liability; and (5) whether cases should 

be coordinated or fully consolidated. The parties state as follows:

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 177 Filed: 07/14/23 Page: 3 of 25 PAGEID #: 2928
2

1. The Remaining Cases. The parties agree that the 11 cases set out in the case 

caption of this Joint Notice are all of the cases that include at least one plaintiff whose claims have 

not settled.

2. The Remaining Plaintiffs. Ohio State asserts that the claims of 296 plaintiffs have 

settled. The parties agree that the claims of the following 236 plaintiffs and putative class have 

not settled (listed in alphabetical order by last name and numerical order by Doe number):

a. Sharp1 Cases (79 Plaintiffs and putative class active):

i. Garrett, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00692

(1) Antognoli, John

(2) Beedon, Roger

(3) Chrystal, Dr. Mark

(4) Davis, Joel

(5) Gonzales, Edward

(6) Kilgore, Kent

(7) Plouse, Adam

(8) Ritchie, Daniel

(9) Schyck, Michael

(10) John Doe 1 

(11) John Doe 2 

(12) John Doe 4 

(13) John Doe 5 

(14) John Doe 6 

(15) John Doe 8 

(16) John Doe 10 

(17) John Doe 11 

(18) John Doe 12 

(19) John Doe 13 

(20) John Doe 14

(21) John Doe 15 

(22) John Doe 17 

(23) John Doe 19 

(24) John Doe 21 

(25) John Doe 22 

(26) John Doe 23 

(27) John Doe 24 

(28) John Doe 25 

 

1 Plaintiffs in these cases are represented by Sharp Law, LLP, The Law Office of Simina Vourlis, Estey & 

Bomberger LLP, Corsiglia, McMahon and Allard, LLP, Karon LLC and Sauder Schelkopf LLC.

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 177 Filed: 07/14/23 Page: 4 of 25 PAGEID #: 2929
3

(29) John Doe 27 

(30) John Doe 29 

(31) John Doe 30 

(32) John Doe 31 

(33) John Doe 32 

(34) John Doe 33 

(35) John Doe 35 

(36) John Doe 36 

(37) John Doe 37 

(38) John Doe 38 

(39) John Doe 39 

(40) John Doe 40 

(41) John Doe 41 

(42) John Doe 42 

(43) John Doe 43 

(44) John Doe 44 

(45) John Doe 45 

(46) John Doe 46 

(47) John Doe 48 

(48) John Doe 50 

(49) John Doe 51 

(50) John Doe 53

(51) John Doe 56 

(52) John Doe 57 

(53) John Doe 58 

(54) John Doe 59

(55) John Doe 61 

(56) John Doe 62 

(57) John Doe 64 

(58) John Doe 69 

(59) John Doe 75 

(60) John Doe 77 

(61) John Doe 85 

(62) John Doe 86 

(63) John Doe 88 

(64) John Doe 89 

(65) John Doe 90 

(66) John Doe 91 

(67) John Doe 92 

ii. Alf, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02542

(1) Alf, Michael

(2) Armstrong, Chris

(3) Novakowski, Allan

(4) Till, Gary

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 177 Filed: 07/14/23 Page: 5 of 25 PAGEID #: 2930
4

(5) John Doe 93

(6) John Doe 94 

(7) John Doe 95 

(8) John Doe 96 

(9) John Doe 97 

(10) John Doe 99 

(11) John Doe 100 

(12) John Doe 101

b. Public Justice2 Cases (107 total Plaintiffs active):

i. Snyder-Hill, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00736

(1) Avis, Gary (John Doe 28 in Second Amended Complaint)

(2) Bechtel, Joseph

(3) Brown, William

(4) Faler, John David

(5) Hatch, Steve

(6) Huntsinger, Kurt

(7) Khalil, James

(8) McCoy, Matthew (John Doe 23 in Second Amended Complaint)

(9) McDaniel, Ronald

(10) Montgomery, Michael (John Doe 65 in Second Amended 

Complaint)

(11) Mulvin, David

(12) Murphy, Michael

(13) Reed, Kelly

(14) Rieffer, William

(15) Robinson, Melvin

(16) Schriner, Robert (John Doe 50 in Second Amended Complaint)

(17) Snyder-Hill, Steve

(18) Solomon, Jerrold L.

(19) Wells, Douglas

(20) John Doe 1 

(21) John Doe 2

(22) John Doe 3 

(23) John Doe 4 

(24) John Doe 5 

(25) John Doe 6 

(26) John Doe 7 

(27) John Doe 8 

(28) John Doe 9 

(29) John Doe 10 

(30) John Doe 11 

 

2 Plaintiffs in these cases are represented by Public Justice, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel, and 

Scott Elliot Smith, LPA.

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 177 Filed: 07/14/23 Page: 6 of 25 PAGEID #: 2931
5

(31) John Doe 12 

(32) John Doe 13 

(33) John Doe 14 

(34) John Doe 15 

(35) John Doe 16 

(36) John Doe 17 

(37) John Doe 18

(38) John Doe 19 

(39) John Doe 20 

(40) John Doe 21 

(41) John Doe 22 

(42) John Doe 25 

(43) John Doe 27 

(44) John Doe 29 

(45) John Doe 30 

(46) John Doe 31 

(47) John Doe 32

(48) John Doe 33

(49) John Doe 34 

(50) John Doe 35 

(51) John Doe 36 

(52) John Doe 37 

(53) John Doe 39 

(54) John Doe 40 

(55) John Doe 41 

(56) John Doe 42 

(57) John Doe 43 

(58) John Doe 44 

(59) John Doe 45 

(60) John Doe 46 

(61) John Doe 47 

(62) John Doe 49 

(63) John Doe 52 

(64) John Doe 54 

(65) John Doe 56 

(66) John Doe 57 

(67) John Doe 58 

(68) John Doe 59 

(69) John Doe 60 

(70) John Doe 62 

(71) John Doe 63 

(72) John Doe 64 

(73) John Doe 66 

(74) John Doe 67 

(75) John Doe 68 

(76) John Doe 69 

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 177 Filed: 07/14/23 Page: 7 of 25 PAGEID #: 2932
6

(77) John Doe 70 

(78) John Doe 71 

(79) John Doe 72 

(80) John Doe 73 

(81) John Doe 74 

(82) John Doe 75 

(83) John Doe 76 

(84) John Doe 77 

ii. Moxley, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03838

(1) Callahan, Ryan

(2) Carroll, James

(3) Jackson, Jr., John 

(4) Moxley, Timothy 

(5) Murray, Patrick

(6) Ross, Everett

(7) John Doe 78 

(8) John Doe 82 

(9) John Doe 83 

(10) John Doe 84 

(11) John Doe 88 

(12) John Doe 89 

(13) John Doe 90 

(14) John Doe 91 

(15) John Doe 92 

(16) John Doe 94 

(17) John Doe 95 

(18) John Doe 97 

(19) John Doe 98 

(20) John Doe 99 

(21) John Doe 101 

(22) John Doe 103 

(23) John Doe 104 

c. Ratliff3 Cases (42 total Plaintiffs active):

i. Nutter, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02462

(1) Cahill, Jack

(2) Caldwell, Michael

(3) Coleman, Mark

(4) DiSabato, Leo

(5) Glane, Michael

(6) Henry, Ryan

 

3 These Plaintiffs are represented by Rocky Ratliff and JC Ratliff. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 177 Filed: 07/14/23 Page: 8 of 25 PAGEID #: 2933
7

(7) Knight, William

(8) Ladrow, Jeffrey

(9) Lisy, Thomas

(10) Long, Elmer

(11) MacDonald, John Jr.

(12) Mondalek, Maroon

(13) Monge, Rick

(14) Nathanson, Peter

(15) Overholt, Scott

(16) Perkins, Christopher

(17) Roehlig, Tom

(18) Roskovich, Brian

(19) Sentieri, Anthony

(20) Smith, Eric

(21) Vazquez, Anastacio Tito Jr.

(22) John Doe 1 

(23) John Doe 2 

(24) John Doe 3

(25) John Doe 4 

(26) John Doe 5 

(27) John Doe 6 

(28) John Doe 7 

(29) John Doe 8 

(30) John Doe 9 

(31) John Doe 10 

(32) John Doe 11 

(33) John Doe 12 

(34) John Doe 13 

(35) John Doe 14 

(36) John Doe 15 

(37) John Doe 17 

(38) John Doe 18 

(39) John Doe 19

ii. Ratliff, Case No. 2:19-cv-04746

(1) Rocky Ratliff

iii. Canales, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02562

(1) Canales, Dr. Michael B.

(2) John Doe 20

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 177 Filed: 07/14/23 Page: 9 of 25 PAGEID #: 2934
8

d. Wright & Schulte Cases (7 total Plaintiffs active):

i. John Does 151-166, Case No. 2:20-cv-03817

(1) John Doe 162

ii. John Does 172-191 and Jane Doe 1, Case No. 2:21-cv-02121

(1) John Doe 174

(2) John Doe 176

(3) John Doe 182

(4) John Doe 183

(5) Jane Doe 1

iii. John Does 192-217, Case No. 2:21-cv-02527

(1) John Doe 195

e. Bianco4 Case (1 active Plaintiff):

i. John Doe, Case No. 2:23-cv-01048

(1) John Doe

3. Claims Revived. 

a. Plaintiffs’ Positions.

(1) Sharp Cases - Garrett, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00692; Alf, et al., 

Case No. 2:21-cv-02542:

Violation of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.

(2) Public Justice Cases - Snyder-Hill, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv00736; Moxley, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03838:

Violation of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.

(3) Wright & Schulte Cases – John Does 151-166, Case No. 2:20-cv 

03817; John Does 172-191 and Jane Doe 1, Case No. 2:21-cv02121; John Does 192-217, Case No. 2:21-cv-02527:

Wright & Schulte, LLC (W&S) takes the position that in all active 

 

4 Plaintiff is represented by Law Offices of John C. Camillus, LLC and Meister Seelig & Fein PLLC.

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 177 Filed: 07/14/23 Page: 10 of 25 PAGEID #: 2935
9

W&S Complaints, all claims are revived. W&S Plaintiffs did not 

know they were assaulted by Dr. Strauss and further, they did not 

know about OSU’s knowledge of Dr. Strauss’ conduct at the time of 

each Plaintiff’s assault.

(4) Bianco Case – John Doe, Case No. 2:23-cv-01048:

(i) John Doe brought Title IX pre-assault claims as John Doe did not 

appreciate he was assaulted until reading about these lawsuits 

against OSU regarding Dr. Strauss, and (ii) although John Doe did 

not bring his action until after the motion to dismiss was decided, 

similar Title IX pre-assault claims were revived by the Sixth Circuit 

Court of Appeals.

(5) Ratliff Cases - Nutter, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02462; Ratliff, 

Case No. 2:19-cv-04746; Canales, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02562:

We believe that the Claims revived were Violations of Title IX, 20 

U.S.C. 1681, et seq. 

b. Ohio State’s Position: 

Ohio State believes the only claims revived by the Sixth Circuit’s decisions 

in the above-captioned actions are the Title IX claims. 

4. Plaintiffs’ Positions On Title IX Theories They Are Pursuing.

a. Sharp Cases - Garrett, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00692; Alf, et al., Case 

No. 2:21-cv-02542:

Pre-assault/heightened risk Title IX violations by Defendant.

b. Public Justice Cases - Snyder-Hill, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00736; 

Moxley, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03838: 

Pre-assault/heightened risk Title IX violations by Defendant. Plaintiffs are 

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 177 Filed: 07/14/23 Page: 11 of 25 PAGEID #: 2936
10

not pursuing post-assault Title IX violations.

c. Wright & Schulte Cases – John Does 151-166, Case No. 2:20-cv 03817; 

John Does 172-191 and Jane Doe 1, Case No. 2:21-cv-02121; John Does 

192-217, Case No. 2:21-cv-02527:

W&S is pursuing all Title IX claims pled in the Complaints or amended 

Complaints for all remaining Plaintiffs. Without limiting what is raised in 

the Complaints, this includes both Violation of Title IX Claims for 

Heightened Risk & Hostile Environment. 

d. Bianco Case – John Doe, Case No. 2:23-cv-01048:

(i) John Doe brought Title IX pre-assault claims as John Doe did not 

appreciate he was assaulted until reading about these lawsuits against OSU 

regarding Dr. Strauss, and (ii) although John Doe did not bring his action 

until after the motion to dismiss was decided, similar Title IX pre-assault 

claims were revived by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

e. Ratliff Cases - Nutter, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02462; Ratliff, Case No. 

2:19-cv-04746; Canales, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02562:

The Ratliff Cases are pursuing all Title IX claims pled in the Complaints 

for all remaining Plaintiffs, including what is raised in their respective 

Complaints to include: pre-assault/heightened risk, post assault, as well as 

hostile environment Title IX violations.

5. Position on Coordination or Consolidation. 

a. Plaintiffs’ Positions.

(1) Sharp Cases - Garrett, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00692; Alf, et al., 

Case No. 2:21-cv-02542; and

(2) Public Justice Cases - Snyder-Hill, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv00736; Moxley, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03838:

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 177 Filed: 07/14/23 Page: 12 of 25 PAGEID #: 2937
11

Plaintiffs’ view is that each attorney group should consolidate their cases into one action 

(under one case number) for each attorney group, and, if a particular attorney group has additional 

clients it should be permitted to supplement its complaint to add such clients without a motion to 

amend. Thereafter, the benefits of case coordination outweigh those of consolidation of all of the 

cases at this stage for the reasons set forth below.

Coordination will provide efficiency without the need to consolidate. An order 

coordinating the discovery process will serve the interests of justice and provide benefits for the 

court, witnesses, and parties by streamlining depositions, interrogatories, and requests for 

production. For example, “[i]n multiparty cases with no designated lead counsel, judges sometimes 

require parties with similar positions to submit a combined set of interrogatories, requests for 

production, or requests for admission. If voluminous materials are to be produced in response, the 

responding party may be relieved of the requirement of furnishing copies to each discovering 

party.” Manual for Complex Litigation, §11.423. Effectively managed coordination will ensure 

that no party will be forced to reinvent the wheel, eliminating the risk of redundant and duplicative 

processes and expenses. As a result, the parties will be in the best position to respect the Court’s 

time and limit unnecessary burdens on witnesses. Although similar efficiencies can be achieved 

through consolidation under Rule 42, many of those benefits are addressed by the fact that all the 

cases at issue have already been assigned to the same district and magistrate judges in this Court, 

leaving coordination as the best, simplest solution to achieve the desired efficiencies called for in 

Rule 1. 

Consolidation is inappropriate, particularly at this juncture. Although consolidation may 

become appropriate in the future, an order consolidating the cases at this time would be

inappropriate for several reasons.

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 177 Filed: 07/14/23 Page: 13 of 25 PAGEID #: 2938
12

First, although we are several years into this litigation, we are at the very early stages of 

the cases. The Defendant has not answered or raised all of its affirmative defenses, which may 

differ from one case to another depending on the facts alleged. The Plaintiffs have different legal 

theories among them, and in certain cases have asserted claims and raised factual issues that are 

not present in other cases. 

Second, of the eleven currently active cases, two are putative class actions that will involve 

discovery and motion practice under Rule 23, and the remaining nine are individual/mass actions 

which do not share these issues. Compare, e.g., Manual for Complex Litigation, 4th, § 10.23 (“In 

litigation involving both class and individual claims, class and individual counsel will need to 

coordinate”); with § 11.213 (“Class certification or its denial will have a substantial impact on 

further proceedings, including the scope of discovery, the definition of issues, the length and 

complexity of trial, and the opportunities for settlement.”). Thus, even with consolidation there 

would effectively be two cases to coordinate, Plaintiffs’ suggestion coordinates just 5 cases. 

Third, some cases include different claims and theories of liability which will likely have 

an impact on Ohio State’s defenses. For example, most of the Plaintiffs in the Public Justice Cases 

have asserted delayed accrual on the basis that they did not know they were abused, while the 

Plaintiffs in the Sharp Cases have not asserted delayed accrual on this basis. Cases “should not be 

consolidated if it would result in increased delay and other unnecessary burdens on parties, such 

as having to participate in discovery irrelevant to their cases.” Id. at § 20.11. 

Fourth, Plaintiffs are sexual assault survivors and consolidation at this point will traumatize 

clients who have invested five years in this case with their chosen and trusted counsel, with whom 

they have developed close and trusting relationships. Consolidation requires that Plaintiffs’ highly 

confidential information about being sexually assaulted be shared with counsel they did not retain. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 177 Filed: 07/14/23 Page: 14 of 25 PAGEID #: 2939
13

Protecting the confidentiality of this information is why the Court permitted Plaintiffs to proceed 

as John Does. And designation of lead counsel represents a stripping away of each Plaintiff’s 

chosen counsel and would harm the trusting relationship between a sexual abuse survivor and their 

counsel.

Finally, given the number of attorneys, consolidation would unnecessarily multiply work 

and proceedings to the extent the attorneys cannot agree. If the cases were to be consolidated at 

this relatively early stage of litigation, it may prove difficult to sever them in the event the need 

were to arise, whereas an order to coordinate would increase efficiency and provide no impediment 

to consolidation at a later date. Additionally, as has been proposed in other courts, coordinating 

the discovery process may well shed light on the question of whether later consolidation may be 

necessary. See, e.g., RLI Ins. Co. v. Fifth Third Bancorp, No. 1:14-CV-802, 2015 WL 13021894, 

at *2 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 18, 2015) (holding that later developments in the case may warrant revisiting 

the then premature issue of consolidation).

The Plaintiffs have already demonstrated the ability to coordinate effectively. The 

benefits tied to a coordination order will be amplified by the fact that the Plaintiff parties have 

already demonstrated a willingness to coordinate efforts to maximize efficient and effective 

communication. These cases are not marked by infighting or efforts to sabotage efficiency which 

would threaten or undermine the judicial process. Instead, coordination will enable counsel to 

“fulfill their obligations as advocates” while still “foster[ing] and sustain[ing] good working 

relations among fellow counsel and with the court.” Manual of Complex Litigation, 4th, § 10.21. 

Through the mediation process, the motion to dismiss briefing, appellate briefing and argument, 

at the Sixth Circuit and in response to the two petitions filed by Ohio State, counsel for the Plaintiff 

groups have cooperated and coordinated efforts to increase efficiencies and best advocate for their

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 177 Filed: 07/14/23 Page: 15 of 25 PAGEID #: 2940
14

respective clients. There is every reason to believe that the Plaintiff groups will be able to continue 

their cooperative approach to this litigation, despite differences among their cases, and that the 

parties will faithfully implement and abide by any coordination directives issued by this Court, 

obviating the need to consolidate under Rule 42.

This Court has ample authority to coordinate these cases. Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure delineates this Court’s obligation “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive 

determination of every action and preceding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. In keeping with that overarching 

obligation, Rule 42 outlines the court’s discretionary ability to consolidate actions involving “a 

common question of law or fact,” but also provides this Court the option to “issue any other orders

to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed R. Civ. P. 42 (emphasis added). In exercising its 

discretion, a court can reject consolidation even where actions include a common question of fact 

or law. See In re Auto. Parts Antitrust Litig., No. 12-CV-00203, 2016 WL 8200512, at *2 (E.D. 

Mich. Apr. 13, 2016). In situations where consolidation is premature, not requested by the parties, 

or is otherwise improper, an order to coordinate discovery is an appropriate method for ensuring 

the judicial efficiency required under Rule 1. See Roxane Lab'ys, Inc. v. Abbott Lab'ys, No. 2:12-

CV-312, 2013 WL 5217571, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 16, 2013). 

Moore’s Federal Practice elaborates on the benefits of coordination at the discovery stage: 

“Judges should encourage techniques that coordinate discovery and avoid duplication . . . . Filing 

or cross-filing deposition notices, interrogatories, and requests for production in related cases will 

make the product of discovery usable in all cases and avoid duplicative activity.” 32 Moore’s 

Federal Practice – Civil § 20.14 (2018). Coordination is especially desirable where, as here, actions 

“are pending before the same judicial officers” and “[coordination can] minimize the risk and 

burden of duplicative discovery even without consolidation.” Roxane, No. 2:12-CV-312, 2013 WL

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 177 Filed: 07/14/23 Page: 16 of 25 PAGEID #: 2941
15

5217571, at *3. And the Manual for Complex Litigation sets forth additional benefits–and 

mechanics–of informal, early-stage coordination of related cases. See Manual for Complex 

Litigation, 4th. 10.122, 10.123 Finally, an order for coordination will allow this Court to defer any 

consideration of the need for consolidation under Rule 42 until after the coordinated discovery 

process plays out, at which point the propriety of consolidation can either be addressed by the 

Court and parties, as warranted. See generally RLI Ins. Co., 2015 WL 13021894, at *2 (S.D. Ohio 

Feb. 18, 2015).

For all the above reasons, Plaintiffs propose that the Plaintiff attorney groups coordinate, 

to the extent reasonable, to joint conduct discovery of the defense witnesses and documents, 

including by aiming to have joint depositions of OSU’s employees and former employees and by 

sharing all document discovery obtained from OSU or Perkins Coie. Plaintiffs oppose formal 

consolidation at this stage; it would be akin to using a sledgehammer to drive a nail—it would 

certainly get the job done, but with unnecessary force and potentially irreversible consequences. 

Plaintiffs respectfully submit that coordination is the appropriate precision tool at this stage of 

litigation.

(3) Wright & Schulte Cases – John Does 151-166, Case No. 2:20-cv 

03817; John Does 172-191 and Jane Doe 1, Case No. 2:21-cv02121; John Does 192-217, Case No. 2:21-cv-02527:

W&S agrees that the cases should be coordinated or consolidated for pre-trial purposes for 

judicial efficiency, but not for any other purpose. This consolidation should be conducted in 

accordance with the Manual for Complex Litigation.

(4) Bianco Case – John Doe, Case No. 2:23-cv-01048:

We agree the cases should be coordinated for pre-trial purposes, but not for any other 

purpose.

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 177 Filed: 07/14/23 Page: 17 of 25 PAGEID #: 2942
16

(5) Ratliff Cases - Nutter, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02462; Ratliff, 

Case No. 2:19-cv-04746; Canales, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02562:

The Ratliff cases also concur with the rationale of the Sharp and Public Justice cases that 

the three Ratliff cases should be consolidated but coordinated with the other cases to provide 

efficience without total consolidation with the other groups.

b. Ohio State’s Position: 

Mindful of the Court’s admonition not to argue these points, and for the sake of brevity, 

Ohio State does not believe the separate cases should be consolidated under one case number, but 

the separate cases should be coordinated for discovery purposes through consultation with Chief 

Magistrate Judge Deavers as stated by the Court at the July 6, 2023 status conference. The 

coordination of discovery would necessarily include, among other things, expanding the number

of permitted depositions to allow the depositions of all Plaintiffs, all fact witnesses, and all experts. 

The Court should not permit any additional plaintiffs to be added to the cases without proper 

motion practice and briefing. 

6. Anonymous Plaintiffs.

a. Ohio State: Given the list of remaining Plaintiffs set forth in paragraph 2 

supra, the identities of the following John Doe Plaintiffs have not yet been disclosed to Ohio State 

or its counsel. 

(1) Garrett, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00692:

John Doe 85

John Doe 88

John Doe 89

John Doe 90

John Doe 91

John Doe 92

(2) Snyder-Hill, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00736

John Doe 1

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 177 Filed: 07/14/23 Page: 18 of 25 PAGEID #: 2943
17

John Doe 2

John Doe 32

John Doe 67

John Doe 68

John Doe 69

John Doe 70

John Doe 71

John Doe 72

John Doe 73

John Doe 74

John Doe 75

John Doe 76

John Doe 77

(3) Alf, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02542

John Doe 93

John Doe 94

John Doe 95

John Doe 96

John Doe 97

John Doe 99

John Doe 100

John Doe 101

(4) Canales, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02562

John Doe 20

(5) Moxley, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03838

John Doe 78 

John Doe 82 

John Doe 83 

John Doe 84 

John Doe 88 

John Doe 89 

John Doe 90 

John Doe 91 

John Doe 92 

John Doe 94 

John Doe 95 

John Doe 97 

John Doe 98 

John Doe 99 

John Doe 101 

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 177 Filed: 07/14/23 Page: 19 of 25 PAGEID #: 2944
18

John Doe 103 

John Doe 104 

(6) John Doe, Case No. 2:23-cv-01048

John Doe

b. Plaintiffs’ Positions.

(1) Sharp Cases - Garrett, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00692; Alf, et al., 

Case No. 2:21-cv-02542; and

(2) Public Justice Cases - Snyder-Hill, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv00736; Moxley, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03838:

OSU first provided the list of purportedly undisclosed John Does shortly before this 

filing. The Public Justice and Sharp Plaintiffs are working to promptly identify all undisclosed 

John Does to OSU consistent with this Court’s order protecting John Doe confidentiality.

Respectfully submitted,

DAVE YOST

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OHIO

By: /s/ Michael H. Carpenter

Michael H. Carpenter (0015733) (Trial Attorney)

Timothy R. Bricker (0061872)

David J. Barthel (0079307)

CARPENTER LIPPS LLP

280 Plaza, Suite 1300

280 North High Street

Columbus, OH 43215

Phone: (614) 365-4100

Fax: (614) 365-9145

E-mail:carpenter@carpenterlipps.com

bricker@carpenterlipps.com

barthel@carpenterlipps.com

Special Counsel for Defendant 

The Ohio State University

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 177 Filed: 07/14/23 Page: 20 of 25 PAGEID #: 2945
19

/s/ Rex A. Sharp

by /s/ Michael H. Carpenter

per email authorization (07/14/2023)

Rex A. Sharp 

Larkin Walsh 

Sarah T. Bradshaw 

SHARP LAW, LLP

4820 W. 75th Street 

Prairie Village, KS 66208 

(913) 901-0505 

rsharp@midwest-law.com

lwalsh@midwest-law.com

sbradshaw@midwest-law.com

Simina Vourlis

The Law Office of Simina Vourlis

856 Pullman Way

Columbus, OH 43212

(614) 487-5900

(614) 487-5901 fax

svourlis@vourlislaw.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

KARON LLC

700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200

Cleveland, OH 44113

Tel.: 216.622.1851

dkaron@karonllc.com

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 177 Filed: 07/14/23 Page: 21 of 25 PAGEID #: 2946
20

Joseph Sauder

SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC

555 Lancaster Avenue

Berwyn, PA 19312

(610) 200-0580

(610) 421-1326

jgs@sstriallawyers.com

Counsel for the Sharp Group Plaintiffs (Garrett, et 

al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00692; Alf, et al., Case No. 

2:21-cv-02542)

/s/ Scott E. Smith

by /s/ Michael H. Carpenter

per email authorization (07/14/2023)

SCOTT ELLIOTT SMITH, LPA

Scott E. Smith (0003749)

5003 Horizons Drive, Suite 100

Columbus, Ohio 43220

Phone: (614) 846-1700

Fax: (614) 486-4987

E-Mail:ses@sestraillaw.com

Ilann M. Maazel (admitted pro hac vice)

Debra L. Greenberger (admitted pro hac vice)

600 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10020

Phone: (212) 763-5000

Fax: (212) 763-5001

E-Mail: imaazel@ecbalaw.com

E-Mail: dgreenberger@ecbalaw.com

Adele P. Kimmel (admitted pro hac vice)

Alexandra 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

Counsel for the Public Justice Plaintiffs (SnyderHill, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00736; Moxley, et al., 

Case No. 2:21-cv-03838)

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 177 Filed: 07/14/23 Page: 22 of 25 PAGEID #: 2947
21

/s/ Richard W. Schulte

by /s/ Michael H. Carpenter

per email authorization (07/14/2023)

Richard W. Schulte (0066031)

WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC

865 S. Dixie Dr.

Vandalia, OH 45377

(937) 435-7500

(937) 435-7511 facsimile

rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com

Counsel for the Wright & Schulte Plaintiffs (John 

Does 151-166, Case No. 2:20-cv-03817; John Does 

172-191 and Jane Doe 1, Case No. 2:21-cv-02121; 

and John Does 192-217, Case No. 2:21-cv-02527)

/s/ John C. Camillus

by /s/ Michael H. Carpenter

per email authorization (07/14/2023)

John C. Camillus, Trial Attorney (0077435)

Law Offices of John C. Camillus, LLC

P.O. Box 141410

Columbus, Ohio 43214

(614) 992-1000

(614) 559-6731 (facsimile)

jcamillus@camilluslaw.com

Mitchell Schuster, Esq. (pro hac vice forthcoming)

Benjamin D. Bianco, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)

Meister Seelig & Fein PLLC

125 Park Avenue, 7th Floor

New York, New York 10017

(212) 655-3500

(212) 655-3535 (facsimile)

ms@msf-law.com

bdb@msf-law.com

Counsel for the Bianco Plaintiff (John Doe, Case No. 

2:23-cv-01048)

/s/ J.C. Ratliff

/s/ Rocky Ratliff

by /s/ Michael H. Carpenter

per email authorization (07/14/2023)

J.C. Ratliff (0027898)

Rocky Ratliff (0089781)

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 177 Filed: 07/14/23 Page: 23 of 25 PAGEID #: 2948
22

200 West Center Street

Marion, Ohio 43302

Telephone: 740.383.6023

Facsimile: 740.383.2066

attorney.ratliff@gmail.com

attorneyrockyratliff@gmail.com

Counsel for the Ratliff Plaintiffs (Nutter, et al., Case 

No. 2:19-cv-02462; Ratliff, Case No. 2:19-cv-04746; 

Canales, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02562)

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 177 Filed: 07/14/23 Page: 24 of 25 PAGEID #: 2949
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically on July 14, 2023. 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

Michael H. Carpenter

Trial Attorney for 

Defendant The Ohio State University

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 177 Filed: 07/14/23 Page: 25 of 25 PAGEID #: 2950