Attorneys for Plaintif Ralph B. Pinskey, Esquire 2414 Logan Street
Harrisburg, Pa. 17110 (717) 576-7383
[email protected] Robert S. Mirin, Esquire 2515 N. Front Street Harrisburg, Pa. 17110 (717) 909-9900
[email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Michael L. Harvey, Esquire Senior Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorny General
15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, Pa. 17120
(717) 783-1471 (phone) (717) 772-4526 (fax)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PATRICK KING, ) No. 1:11-CV-1112 Plaintiff )
) (Judge Rambo) v. )
) MANSFIELD UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, ) Defendant )
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Instructions: In many cases there will be more parties in the action than there are spaces provided in this form. Each party shall provide all requested information. If the space on this form is not sufficient, the form should be retyped or additional pages attached.
No party may submit a separate Case Management Plan. Disagreements among parties with respect to any of the matters below shall be set forth in the appropriate section.
Having complied with the meet and confer requirements set forth in the LOCAL RULES, or with any orders specifically modifying their application in the
above-captioned matter, the parties hereby submit the following Joint Case Management Plan. (Revised 12/09)
1. Principal Issues
1.1 Separately for each party, please give a statement summarizing this case: By plaintiff(s):
Plaintiff Patrick King enrolled at Mansfeld University in January 2001. During matriculation at Mansfield, King also worked for the Student Activities Director. King's employment with Mansfield frequently brought him in contact with John Estep, a male member of the University's Maintenance Department. Starting in June of 2001, on several occasions, Estep engaged in conduct that harassed Plaintiff King because of King's sex (male). During that Summer of 2001, King went to see Joseph Moresco, Mansfield's Vice President of Student Affairs, to complain about Estep's sexual harassment. During that visit with Mr. Moresco, King gave Moresco several vulgar emails, which Estep had sent to King. Mr. Moresco promised King that he would forward the emails to the University's Human Resources Offices; but King was never contacted by that office during that time frame. Subsequentially, Estep continued to sexually harass King. Estep's last act of sexual harassment was to grab King by his genitals, which caused King to suffer severe pain in his gonads.
After Estep's sexual harassment began, Plaintiff King became moderately depres-sed. Following the foredescribed sexual assault, King's depression worsened to the point that he suffered a "breakdown." King was prescribed an anti-depressant by his doctor (Dr. George Dy.) The medication made King feel very drugged and sleepy. King's depression and his reaction to the medication prescribed for his depression adversely affected King's college studies, particularly by causing him to miss a lot of classes.
King sought reasonable accommodation for his medical condition from the University. In the course of seeking reasonable accommodation, King disclosed to Mansfield's officials, including Mansfield's President, Dr. John Halstead, the sexual harassment and the sexual assault by John Estep. King never received the reasonable accommodation which he sought for his disability, nor did anything happen, to King's knowledge, as a result of his complaint to the University about Estep's sexual haras-sment and sexual assault. Mansfield's failure to accommodate King's disability delayed King's graduation from college and it caused him to incur additional expenses.
By defendant(s):
Defendant believes that plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim is untimely. Plaintiff alleges that he was sexually harassed by a John Estep, an employee of Mansfield University. Estep ceased to be an employee in February 2003. The amended
complaint asserting this claim for the first time was not filed in the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission until May 13, 2005. To file a suit under Title VII, however, a
plaintiff must file a charge with the EEOC or PHRC within 300 days of the complained of action or the suit is time-barred.
Defendant did not receive notice of this claim until 2010. Because Joseph Maresco, the person to whom plaintiff claims to have reported the sexual harassment, left
university employment in 2002, defendant is without knowledge as to whether any university administrator had actual notice and was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s claims of harassment.
Drs. Bruce Carpenter and Dr. Mahmoud Gaballa never received any request from plaintiff for an accommodation, or that plaintiff ever informed them that he suffered from depression.
1.2 The facts the parties dispute are as follows:
1.21 Whether King was an"employee"of Mansfield University.
1.22 Whether King was sexually harassed and sexually assaulted by John Estep
1.23 Whether King reported that sexual harassment to Joseph Moresco. 1.24 Whether other students had similar problems with Mr. Estep
1.25 The nature of King's medical condition, its cause, and whether that medical condition adversely affected King's college studies.
1.26 Whether plaintiff ever requested an accommodation for his depression, or informed Drs. Carpenter and Gaballa that he suffered from depression.
1.27 Whether King was denied a reasonable accommodation. 1.28 Whether King was disabled by his medical condition and the treatment for that condition.
agree upon are as follows:
1.29 That Patrick King did enroll at Mansfield University in January of of 2001, where he majored in business administration.
1.29a That King performed work on campus in some capacity while matriculating at Mansfield University.
1.29b That King wrote letters to Dr. John Halstead in April and May of 2004
1.29c That Dr. Halstead referred King to Molley Bailey, Mansfield's Human Resources Director
1.29d That King did have converstions with Molley Bailey in May of 2004 1.29e That King failed certain courses taught by Dr. Carpenter and Dr. Gaballa that were required courses for King's major, which delayed King's gaduation from Mansfield.
1.29f That King did eventually graduate from Mansfeld after he made up those courses which he failed.
1.3 The legal issues the parties dispute are as follows:
1.31 Whether King was an "employee" Mansfield University
1.32 Whether Mansfield University discriminated against King because of his sex (Male)
1.33 Whether Mansield University discriminated against King because of his disability (depression and reaction to medication prescribed for depression)
1.34 Whether plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim is time-barred. agree upon are as follows:
1.35 None
1.4 Identify any unresolved issues as to service of process, personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, or venue:
None
1.5 Identify any named parties that have not yet been served: None
1.6 Identify any additional parties that: plaintiff(s) intends to join: None defendant(s) intends to join: None 1.7 Identify any additional claims that:
plaintiff(s) intends to add: None at this time
defendant(s) intends to add: None at this time
The undersigned counsel certify that they have made the initial disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) or that they will do so within the time provided by that rule.
2.1 Separately for each party, list by name and title/position each person whose identity has been disclosed.
Disclosed by Plaintiff :
Name Title/Position
John Estep Maintenance Person Joseph Moresco Vice President of Student Affairs
Dr. George Dy Plaintiff's doctor Philip Savoye Professor Goplan Kutty Professor Bruce Carpenter Professor Mahmoud Gaballa Professor
Dr. John Halstead Mansfield's President Molley Bailey Human Resourses Director Paula Welch Chair of Business
Department Dr. Michael Lane Provost
Names Unknown Present and Former Head of
Campus Police
Names Unknown Present and Former Person Responsible for Cleary Act
Reports
Disclosed by Defendant _________ :
Name Title/Position
None beyond the individuals disclosed by plaintiff
3.0 Early Motions
Identify any motion(s) whose early resolution would likely have a significant effect either on the scope of discovery or other aspects of the litigation:
Nature of Motion Moving Party Anticipated Filing Date
Spoliation Motion by Plaintiff A spoliation motion could be filed by Plaintiff at any time should we learn that relevant documents were not preserved after Plaintiff filed with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. (This is a real concern)
Motion for Summary Judgement Either party might file a Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Jugment After
the Conclusion of Discovery
4.0 Discovery
4.1 Briefly describe any discovery that has been completed or is in progress: By plaintiff(s):
Plaintiff's Counsel has previously, informally advised Mansfield's attorney of the individuals likely to be deposed by him and the documents, including electronic documents, likely to be sought by him, in order to give the Defendant a heads-up on discovery.
By defendant(s): None to date.
4.2 Describe any discovery that all parties agree should be conducted, indicating for each discovery undertaking its purpose or what kinds of information will be developed through it (e.g., "plaintiff will depose Mr. Jones, defendant's controller, to learn what defendant's revenue recgnition policies were and how they were applied to the kinds of contracts in this case"):
Depositions of King, his doctor, and all of the individuals to whom King told about his problems with John Estep, his depression and treatment, or his request for reasonable accommodation. Documents that show what
actions these individuals took after being so informed by King. Production of King's medical records, academic records, and work records.
Production of Estep's work records, including disciplinary records.
Mansfield's policy at that time on sexual assaults and sexual harassment against students, employees, and visitors to the campus. Documents that show how Mansfield handled other allegations of sexual assaults or
sexual harassment, including, but not limited to, other claims against John Estep.
4.3 Describe any discovery that one or more parties want(s) to conduct but to which another party objects, indicating for each such discovery
undertaking its purpose or what kinds of information would be developed through it:
None at this Time
4.4 Identify any subject area limitations on discovery that one or more parties would like imposed, at the first stage of or throughout the litigation:
Plaintiff believes that his sexual orientation is not a proper subject of discovery. 4.5 For each of the following discovery tools, recommend the party or
per-side limitation (specify a number) that should be fixed, subject to later modification by stipulation or court order on an appropriate showing (where the parties cannot agree, set forth separately the limits
recommended by plaintiff(s) and by defendant(s)): 4.5.1 depositions (excluding experts) to be taken by:
plaintiff(s): 15* defendant(s):5
* The actual number is expected to be less depending on the number of prospective deponents who can be located and subjected to deposition.
4.5.2 interrogatories to be served by:
plaintiff(s): 30 defendant(s):30 4.5.3 document production requests to be served by:
plaintiff(s): 25 defendant(s):25 4.5.4 requests for admission to be served by:
plaintiff(s): 30 defendant(s):30 4.6 Discovery of Electronically Stored Information
X Counsel certify that they have conferred about the matters addressed in M.D. Pa LR 26.1 and that they are in agreement about how those matters will be addressed in discovery.
X Counsel certify that they have conferred about the matters addressed in M.D. Pa. LR 26.1 and that they are in agreement about how those matters will be addressed in discovery with the following exceptions:
5.0 Protective Order
5.1 If entry of a protective order is sought, attach to this statement a copy of the proposed order. Include a statement justifying the propriety of such a protective order under existing Third Circuit precedent.
None at This Time
5.2 If there is a dispute about whether a protective order should be entered, or about certain terms of the proposed order, briefly summarize each party's position below: N/A
6.0 Scheduling
6.1 Final date for joining additional parties: 2/17/12 Plaintiff(s)
2/17/12 Defendants(s)
6.2 Final date for amending pleadings: 9/28/12 Plaintiff(s)
9/28/12 Defendants(s)
6.3 All fact discovery commenced in time to be completed by: 8/31/12_____
6.4 All potentially dispositive motions should be filed by 11/16/12 6.5 Reports from retained experts due:
from plaintiff(s) by 9/14/12 from defendant(s) by 9/28/12
6.6 Supplementations due 10/12/12
6.7 All expert discovery commenced in time to be completed by 10/31/12 6.8 This case may be appropriate for trial in approximately:
240 Days from the filing of the action in this court 365 Days from the filing of the action in this court Days from the filing of the action in this court
X March 2013
6.9 Suggested Date for the final Pretrial Conference: 2/13 (month/year)
6.10 Trial
6.10.1 Suggested Date for Trial:
3/13 (month/year)
7.0 Certification of Settlement Authority (All Parties Shall Complete the Certification)
I hereby certify that the following individual(s) have settlement authority. Name: Ralph B. Pinskey, Esquire
Title: Attorney for Plaintiff
Address: Law Offices of Ralph B. Pinskey, 2414 Logan Street, Harrisburg, Pa. 17110
Daytime Phone: (717) 576-7383
I hereby certify that the following individuals have settlement authority for the defendant:
Dr. John C. Cavanaugh
Chancellor, Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education Dixon University Center
2986 North Second Street, Harrisburg 17110 Daytime Phone 717-720-4010
Linda L. Kelly Attorney General
16th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120
Daytime Phone 717-787-3391 8.0 Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR")
8.1 Identify any ADR procedure to which this case already has been assigned or which the parties have agreed to use.
ADR procedure None at this time Date ADR to be commenced -
Date ADR to be completed -
8.2 If the parties have been unable to agree on an ADR procedure, but one or more parties believes that the case is appropriate for such a procedure, identify the party or parties that recommend ADR and the specific ADR process recommended:
Both parties agree to consider ADR after completition of discovery. They believe that ADR would be more productive at that time.
8.3 If all parties share the view that no ADR procedure should be used in this case, set forth the basis for that view:
N/A
9.0 Consent to Jurisdiction by a Magistrate Judge
Indicate whether all parties agree, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '636(c)(1), to have a magistrate judge preside as the judge of the case with appeal lying to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit:
All parties agree to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge of this court: Y X N. If parties agree to proceed before a magistrate judge, please indicate below which location is desired for the proceedings: N/A
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Harrisburg
10.0 Other Matters
Make any other suggestions for the case development process, settlement, or trial that may be useful or necessary to the efficient and just resolution of the dispute.
Because this matter was pending for a long time before the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, there is a real concerns about our ability to locate and depose potential witnesses and whether relevant documents have been preserved. That is why Plaintiff's Counsel has given Defendant's Counsel a "heads-up" about possible witnesses that he may depose and possible documents that he may seek in discovery.
11.0 Identification of Counsel
Counsel shall be registered users of the court’s Electronic Case Files System (ECF) and shall file documents electronically in accordance with the Local Rules of Court and the Standing Order RE: Electronic Case Filing Policies and
Procedures. Electronic filing is required unless good cause is shown to the Chief Judge why counsel cannot comply with this policy. Any request for waiver of electronic filing must be filed with the Clerk’s Office prior to the case
management conference. The Chief Judge may grant or deny such request. Identify by name, address, and telephone number lead counsel for each party. Also please indicate ECF User status below.
Dated:12/13/11 s/Ralph B. Pinsky
Ralph B. Pinskey, Esquire (Lead Counsel) Law Offices of Ralph B. Pinskey
2414 Logan Street Harrisburg, Pa. 17110 (717) 576-7383
` Attorney(s) for Plaintiff(s) X ECF User(s)
□ Waiver requested (as separate document) □ Fed.R.Civ.P.7.1 (statement filed if necessary)*
Dated: 12/14/11 s/Michael L. Harvey Michael L. Harvey (Lead Counsel)
Senior Deputy Attorney General Attorney ID #30098
GREGORY R. NEUHAUSER Chief Deputy Attorney General Chief, Civil Litigation Section Office of Attorney General 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120
Phone: (717) 783-6896 Fax: (717) 772-4526
[email protected] Attorneys(s) for Defendant(s) X ECF User(s)
□ Waiver requested (as separate document) □ Fed.R.Civ.P.7.1 (statement filed if necessary)*
* Fed.R.Civ.P.7.1 requires a nongovernmental corporate party to file a statement with the initial pleading, first entry of appearance, etc., that identifies any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of its stock, or state there is no such corporation.
