1 UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

__________________________________________) DEBABRATA SAHA, ) ) P la in t if f, ) ) v. ) Ci vilAc ti on N o. 08 -0 87 (R CL ) ) GEORG E WASHINGTON ) UNIVERSITY, e t al

. , ) ) De fend ant s. ) __________________________________________)
M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Presently befor e the Court is defe ndant Geor g e Washing ton University ’s (“ GW’s”) Motion [ 37] for Summ ary J udg ment. For

the re asons below, the Court sha ll gr ant GW’s motion.

I. F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND Plaintiff was a te nured f

aculty member at GW. I n September 2005, two G W administrators filed a

three -pag e complaint with the F aculty Senate Dispute Resolution Commi ttee see king the revoc ation of plaintiff’s te nure. ( Mot. Ex . A.) The complaint made ref ere nce to a

suspension of plaintiff in Octobe r 1997 and a n October 30, 1997 letter sent by

GW Vice Pre sident Donald L ehman to plaintiff. ( Id. at2
. ) T h e c o mp l a i n tw a s f o l l o w e d b y a sevente en-pa g e “Supplementa l Statement of Misconduct,” which made no me ntion of an Oc tober 19 97 su sp e ns ion

or le tte r. (M ot. Ex. C. ) A ft e r a se ri e s o f h e ari ng s, the F a c ult y Se nate Di sp ute Re so lut ion

Committe e ’s He ari ngPane l ( “ the Pane l” ) r e le a se d it s d e c isi on in Jul y 20 06 . ( Mo t.2

Ex . E.) The Panel found that “ the Univer sity demonstrated by

clea r and c onvincingevidenc e that [pla int if f] p e rs ist e ntl y

ne g le c te d h is p ro fe ssi on a l r e sp on sib ili tie s a nd thu s h a [d] pr ov e n a de qu ate
cause for tenur e re vocation.” ( Id. Ex . E at 13.) The Panel noted that its decision was ba sed on plaintiff’s ac tions after A pril 1999. (

Id. Ex . E at 2.) Plaintiff appe aled this dec ision, and it was upheld on appe al. (

Id. Ex . F.) Followinghis tenure r evoca tion, plaintiff sued GW and sever al GW administrators
a lle g ingtw e nty -e ig ht c ounts of br e a c h o f c on tr a c t. U

po n d e fe nd ants ’ M oti on

[9] to Di smi ss, thi s Court dismi ssed almost all of plaintiff’s a lleg ations for fa ilure to state a c laim. (Orde r [33] .) The sole rema ining a lleg ation ag ainst GW, Count 18(c) , alleg es that GW violated the F aculty Code by not allowing pla intiff to acc ess the Oc tober 30, 1997 letter mentioned in the complaint. GW now moves for

summary judgme nt on this remaining a lleg ation.

II. LEGAL STANDARD F OR SUMMAR Y JUDG MENT Summary judgme nt should be g rante d when “ the pleading s, the discover y and disclosure materia ls on file, and any aff idavits show that there is no g enuine issue a s to any materia l fac t and that th e mov ant i s e nti tle d to jud g me nt a s a matte r o f l aw. ” F e d. R. C iv. P. 5 6( c ). Th e pa rt y seekingsummary

judgme nt bear s the initial burden of produc tion as to the absenc e of g enuine issues of mater ial fac t. Ce lote xCor p. v . Ca tre tt , 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). A g enuine issue of
m at e r i a l f a c te x i s t s i f

th e e v i d e n c e , v i e w e d

i nth e l i g h tm o s tf

av o r a b l e t o th e n o n m o v i n gp arty, “is such that a r easona

ble jury could re turn a ve rdict for the nonmoving pa

rty .” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). B ut a g enuine issue r equire s more than “ a scintilla of evidenc e” suppor ting the nonmovingparty ; “there must be evidenc e on which the juryDef endant c aptions his entire Opposition as a “ Dec laration under pena lty of per jury .” 1 (O pp ’n at 2. ) I n c on str uin gpla int if

f’ s pro se filing liber ally , the Court considers pla intiff’s statements on pag e 5 to be a decla ration that the Oc tober 30, 1997 letter exis ts. 3 could re asonably

find” for the nonmoving pa

rty . Id. at 252. B eca

use plaintiff is proc eedingpro se, his filings will be liber ally construed. Erickson v . Pardus , 127 S. Ct . 2197, 2200 (2007).

III . A NA LY SIS The Court must gr ant GW’s motion because the Octobe r 30, 1997 letter, e ven if it does exis t, is not m ater ial to the issue of whe ther GW brea ched the Fa culty Code. The GW Fa culty

Code (spec ifically

its “Procedur es for

I mplementation”) outlines the
re qu ir e d e le me nts of

the Pane l’ s ju dic ia l pr oc e ss. Spe c if ic a lly , it mand ate s th at “ [a] p art

y sh a ll be entitled to inspect a

nd copy , in advanc e of the hear ing, a ll releva nt documents in control of the other pa rty and not privileg ed and ma y offe r such doc uments or excerpts ther efr om in evidence .” (Mot. Ex . H at 4 (F aculty Code Procedur es E(4) (c) (3)) .) Ag ain, plaintiff alleg es that the Oc tober 30, 1997 letter wa s withheld from him in violation of this provision. There rema ins a g enuine issue of fac t as to whether

that letter e ver e x isted. GW has submitt ed a de clar ation claimingthat it does not ex ist and that the complaint should have instea d ref ere nced a n Ap ril 1997 suspension and an Ap ril 30, 1997 letter. (Mot. Ex. “D. L ehman Dec l.”).) Plaintiff de clar es that the Oc tober 1997 letter does exist. (Def.’s Opp’ n at 5). 1 Ho we ve r, the Oc tob e r 1 99 7 le tte r, e ve n if it d id e xist, do e s n ot f

a ll w ith in t

he F a c ult y C o d e’ s re qu i re m en tb ec au s e i twa s n o tre l ev an tt o p l ai n t i ff ’s t en ure re v o ca t i o n . Fi rs t , al th o u gh the letter w as mentioned (pe rhaps e rrone ously) in GW’s orig inal three -pag e complaint, it was not
me nti on e d in

the mor e su

bs tanti a l se ve nte e n- pa g e “ Sup ple me nta l State me nt o f M isc on du c t”4

(which de alt primarily

with post-1999 events). ( Mot. Ex . C.) This alone sug g ests that any 1997 letter wa s not “rele vant” to the ove rall tenure revoc ation proce ss within the meaningof the Fa culty Code. Th e Pane l’ s o wn

langua g e is a lso te lli ng . T he Pane l c le arl y ind ic ate d th at it s d e c isi on to
re vo ke pla int if

f’ s te nure wa s b a se d o nly on e ve nts afte r plaintiff’s Apr il 1999 reinstatement for a separ ate suspension: This Panel views [plaintiff’s April 1999 reinstate ment] as a new be g inning, a n opportunity

for [plaintiff] to reinteg rate into the depar tment and a willing ness on the par t of the Univer sity

for [plaintiff] to reinteg rate . . . . Thus, this P anel ba ses its decision reg ardingtenure revoc ation on [pl aintiff’s] conduct followingthe Ap r il 1 9 9 9 [r e in s tate me n t]
. (Mot. Ex . E at 2.) The Panel re iterate s later in the de cision: The pre -1999 eve nts (specific ally the eve nts of 1996-97) obviously aff ecte d [pla int if f] d ra matic a lly and pe rh a ps ri g htf ull y so . T his Pane l do e s n ot h old his c on du c t du

ri ngthat tr

yingtim e a g a ins t hi m. ( Id. at 9.) In light of G W’s overall alleg ations ag ainst plaintiff and the a ctual languag e of the Panel de c isi on , it

c ann ot f a ir ly be sa id t hat th e Oc tob e r 3 0, 19 97 le tte r— a ssumin gthat do e s e xist— fa lls within the Fac ulty

Code’s re quirement that GW rele ase a ll documents “re levant” to plaintiff’ s tenure revoc ation. As a re sult, the factua l issue of whethe r the letter exis ts is not m ater ial to the resolution of plaintiff’s a ction. Be cause plaintiff does not alleg e that any other doc uments were withheld from him, GW is entit led to judgme nt as a matter of law.

CO NC LU SION For the re asons stated a

bove, the Court shall ente r summary judgme nt in favor of

GW. A5

separ ate or der sha ll issue this date.
Signed by Roy ce C. L amber

th, Chief J udg e, on January 28, 2009.