UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

Brian Garrett, et al., 

Plaintiffs, Lead Action 2:18-cv-692 

 

v. Judge Michael H. Watson 

 

The Ohio State University, Chief Magistrate Judge Deavers 

Defendant. 

ORDER 

In the past few months, this case and the consolidated and related cases 

thereto have started to veer into two distinctly separate tracks. About half of the 

Plaintiffs have reached a tentative settlement agreement with The Ohio State 

University. But the remainder of Plaintiffs have voiced frustration with the 

mediation process and have asked this Court to reinstate a case schedule. Until 

recently, however, the Court had not received word from the mediator that the 

situation warranted parallel mediation and litigation efforts. Having now been so 

informed by the mediator, the Court PARTIALLY LIFTS the mediation stay and 

ORDERS the following: 

1. Case Numbers 2:19-cv-2237, 2:19-cv-1911, 2:19-cv-5418, 2:19-cv3165, 2:19-4397, 2:19-cv-4624, 2:19-cv-4634, 2:19-cv-5551, 2:20-cv1188, 2:19-cv-2429, 2:20-cv-1385, and 2:19-cv-4433 (“settling cases”) 

shall be unconsolidated with Case Number 2:18-cv-692 and 

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 120 Filed: 04/17/20 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 1979
consolidated with each other. Case Number 2:19-cv-2237 will be the 

new lead case. 

2. Any Plaintiffs from any settling case that do not wish to join the 

settlement (“non-joining Plaintiffs”), and who wish to continue with 

litigation, shall file a new Complaint within the timeframe set forth 

below. 

a. To the extent such non-joining Plaintiffs are represented by the 

same counsel, all non-joining Plaintiffs represented by that 

counsel shall be joined together in a single new complaint. Nonjoining Plaintiffs who are currently represented by different 

counsel of record are permitted, but not required, to join together 

in a Complaint. In other words, the Court envisions no more than 

one new Complaint by each set of non-joining Plaintiffs who are 

represented by the same group of attorneys. 

3. All cases that have not settled even in part (“non-settling cases”) shall 

be unconsolidated from Case Number 2:18-cv-692 and shall proceed 

simultaneously with litigation and continued mediation. 

a. The non-settling cases shall be listed as related but shall not be 

consolidated with one another. 

b. For administrative efficiency, each group of attorneys who 

represents multiple non-settling cases shall choose one of those 

case numbers in which to file an Amended Complaint that 

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 120 Filed: 04/17/20 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 1980
incorporates all of the non-settling Plaintiffs whom that group of 

attorneys represents. Thereafter, the other case numbers 

currently represented by that group of attorneys shall be 

administratively closed without judgment. 

c. Non-settling cases that are currently represented by different 

attorney groups are permitted, but not required, to join together in 

an Amended Complaint. 

d. As with the settling cases that contain non-settling Plaintiffs, the 

goal of this Order is to reduce the amount of non-settling cases 

to, at most, one by each group of attorneys. 

e. Attorney groups who represent more than one current nonsettling case and feel there is a need for that attorney group to 

maintain more than one non-settling case number shall move the 

Court to do so, explaining specifically why their numerous nonsettling cases cannot be joined together. 

4. Amended Complaints shall be filed within twenty-one days of the date 

of this Order. 

5. Notwithstanding prior extensions of time, Defendant’s responsive 

pleading, and any subsequent briefing thereto, shall be filed within the 

time established in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the 

Southern District of Ohio’s Local Rules. 

6. Nothing in this Order should be construed as an indication by the Court 

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 120 Filed: 04/17/20 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 1981
that mediation efforts should cease. The Court fully expects the parties 

to continue their mediation efforts under the direction of Judge Barrett. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 ___/s/ Michael H. Watson____________ 

 MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 120 Filed: 04/17/20 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 1982