ALBANY

AMSTERDAM

ATLANTA

AUSTIN

BERLIN**

BOSTON

BRUSSELS**

CHICAGO

DALLAS

DELAWARE

DENVER

FORT LAUDERDALE

HOUSTON

LAS VEGAS

LONDON*

LOS ANGELES

MIAMI

MILAN**

NEW JERSEY

NEW YORK

ORANGE COUNTY

ORLANDO

PALM BEACH COUNTY

PHILADELPHIA

PHOENIX

ROME**

SACRAMENTO

SHANGHAI

SILICON VALLEY

TALLAHASSEE

TAMPA

TOKYO**

TYSONS CORNER

WASHINGTON, D.C.

WHITE PLAINS

ZURICH*

*OPERATES AS GREENBERG

TRAURIG MAHER LLP

**STRATEGIC ALLIANCE

TPA 511,518,012v1 2-10-11

Ian S. Marx

Tel (973) 360-7951

Fax (973) 301-8410

marxi@gtlaw.com

February 14, 2011

Via Electronic Filing and U.S. Mail

Honorable Susan D. Wigenton, United States District Court Judge

United States District Court

Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building & Courthouse

50 Walnut Street, Room 5060

Newark, New Jersey 07101

Re: Russell-Brown v. The University of Florida Board of Trustees et al.,

No. 10-cv-04017 (SDW-MCA)

Dear Judge Wigenton:

On behalf of the University of Florida, its Board of Trustees and the Levin College

of Law and its dean (“the U of F Defendants”), I am responding to the February 7, 2011

letter (with attachment) that was sent to Your Honor by Lennox S. Hinds, Esq., counsel for

Plaintiff Sherrie Russell-Brown. As an initial matter, I would respectfully suggest that Mr.

Hinds’s letter has no legitimate purpose. The U of F Defendants’ motion to dismiss the

Complaint is pending before this Court. If Mr. Hinds wishes to rebut any of the U of F

Defendants’ positions or arguments, the proper place to do so is in Plaintiff’s opposition

papers, which are presently due on February 21, 2011. By writing directly to Your Honor

concerning a pending motion, Mr. Hinds is attempting to circumvent the Court Rules and to

put unsworn assertions and documents before the Court.

The U of F Defendants seek to dismiss the Complaint because, among other things,

Plaintiff (or counsel acting on her behalf) has submitted inauthentic documents to the Court,

specifically two e-mails that purport to have been sent by University of Florida personnel.

(One of the e-mails is attached to Mr. Hinds’s February 7th letter.) Submitted with the U of

F Defendants’ motion are sworn declarations from the relevant individuals, which support

the conclusion that the e-mails are not genuine.

Mr. Hinds states that he has asked me “to take immediate remedial measures,”

meaning that he has asked me to withdraw the U of F Defendants’ motion to the extent it

seeks dismissal of the Complaint as a sanction for having attempted to perpetrate a fraud on

the Court by submitting inauthentic documents on which the Court was intended to rely. I

have advised Mr. Hinds that the U of F Defendants are confident, both in their evidence and

in their reading of the case law and, therefore, do not intend to withdraw any portion of

their pending motion. (Mr. Hinds’s suggestion that I “may be” in violation of the Rules of

Professional Conduct is gratuitous. I have advised Mr. Hinds that I am willing to meet with

Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 66 Filed 02/14/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1328
TPA 511,518,012v1 2-10-11

him to go over the U of F Defendants’ evidence disproving the authenticity of the e-mails

and to review any evidence he might have to the contrary. He has not replied to my offer.)

In sum, Mr. Hind’s letter constitutes an inappropriate attempt to bypass the motion

process prescribed by the Court Rules. Mr. Hinds will have every opportunity to present

his arguments, both in his opposition papers and at the hearing on the U of F Defendants’

motion (assuming oral argument is granted). His unsolicited February 7th diatribe is simply

out of order and should not be considered by the Court.

I appreciate Your Honor’s continued courtesies in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Ian S. Marx

Ian S. Marx

cc: All Counsel of Record (via ECF)

Case 2:10-cv-04017-SDW -MCA Document 66 Filed 02/14/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1329