Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 1-2 Filed 01/14/15 Page 1 of 24 Page ID #:5

1 Alan Burlon Newman, Esq. (40403)

_COoNRFtOclNRAM,ELTp}¡uC-eO-oÞI?
öupÇeort¡¡ontrvCoô[ui-rot sofACnaoleilloems ia

ALAN BURTON NEWMAN. A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
2 4344 Promenade Way, Suite 104

DEC 1 0 2014

Marina Del Rey, Califomia 90292-6281 J Telephone: (3 1 0) 306-4339
Facsimiie: (3 10) 821 -l 883

Sherri R. Carter, Êxecutive
By tarnetta Smith,

4
Attorney for Pl aintiffs

CASE MA NAGEMENT CONFERENCE

5 Haley Videckis, Layana White

ilutzt

6

,]

SUPERIOR COURT OF TT-IE STATE OF CALIFORI.{iA

K@ .7rJí¡ty)

8

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

9 HALEY VIDECKIS and LAYANA WHITE, caseNo.: SC123498

10 individuais,

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

11

Plaintiffs,

12
VS.

IJ RYAN WEISENBERG, an individual, and

lST CAUSE oF ACTIoN: BRoUGHT BY PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS, VIOLATION OF RIGHT OF PRIVACY UNDER CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1, g1

14 PEPPERDINE UNIVERSiTY, a corporation 2ND CAUSE oF ACTION: BROUGHT BY

15 doing business in Caiifomia,

PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS, VIOLATION OF

16

CALIFORNIA AB 537 INCLUDING BUT

11

Defendants

NOT LIMITED TO CALIFORNIA EDUCATIONAL CODE ï220, 221, 66251,

6627A
18

I9

3RD CAUSE oF ACTION: BROUGIIT BY PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL

20

DEFENDANTS, \ZIOLATION OF TITLE

IX

21

22
I.
.¿-J
24

PARTIES
1. Plaintiff HALEY VIDECKIS, ("Haley"). is a resident of Caiifornia and aZ}-yeat'-

25 old, Caucasian woman, playing basketball at Pepperdine Universitl,. 5¡" is a transfer student

26 fìom Arizona State Universit¡,, She was one of the outstanding players at Arizona State

27 Universitl, and earned PAC 12 All-Frestulan honolable mention notice during the 2012-2013

28 season. ln Juiy 2A13, she was highiy recruited b),the University and its coaches and transfen.ed

-t-
COIVTPLAINT FOR DAN4AGES

EXHIBIT A

005

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 1-2 Filed 01/14/15 Page 2 of 24 Page ID #:6

to Pepperdine Universit5, to r".t better education and further her career to become a WNBA
1
basketball piayer.
2

3

2. Plaintiff LAYANA WHITE, ("Layana") is a resident of California and a2|-year-

4 oid, African American woman, playing basketball at Pepperdine University. She is a transfer

5 student from University of Arizona where she piayed basketball as one of its top players. She was

6 highiy recruited by the University and its coaches and transfemed to Pepperdine University in
- January 2014. She believed that transferring to Pepperdine Univesity would provide her better

8 education and further irer career to become a WNBA player.

9

3. Defendant PEPPERDINE UNIVERSiTY, ("University") is a university located in

10

California and is believed to be a corporation. The University and its students receive funds flom

11

the federal government and the state of California. I2

13

4. Defendant, RYAN WEISENBERG, ("Coach Ryan"), is a resident of Califomia, a

14 Caucasian man, and the head coach of the women's basketball team at Pepperdine University at

15 all time mentioned herein.

16 II.
1l
t8

SUMMARY OF THE CASE
5. Plaintifß incotpolate by reference each and every allegation contained in

19 paraglaphs 1 through 4 as though set forlh fuliy herein.

20

6. Pepperdine University is a bible-based institution that admits lesbians as students

21
but believe that, if students have premarital sex, it is a sin and the University will expel them.

22
During the Plaintiffs' attendance at the University, they developed a lesbian reiationship. Having

a relationship would not violate the university's bibiical briefs as long as they were not having 24
sex. The Piaintiffs wished to keep this relationship private because they were aware of the
25
University's arnbivalent attitude toward lesbian relationships, Shortly after their relationship
26
began, various members of the University including Defendant Coach Ryan and his assistant
27
coaches, trainers and Acadernic Coordinator Adi Coniogue ("Adi") tried to find out the nature of
28

-2-
COMPLAI}JI FOR DAMAGES

006

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 1-2 Filed 01/14/15 Page 3 of 24 Page ID #:7

1 the Piaintiffs' sexuai orientation and their lelationship. In order to avoid rumors that they were 2 lesbians, the Plaintiffs denied that their relationship was lnoÍe than friends. The Piaintifß asked JI for Coach Ryan's help to stop the rurnors and the unfair treatment they had been receiving fiom 4 the trainers and the academic coordinator. Coach Ryan refused to help because he believed that 5 the Plaintiffs were in a lesbian relationship and, unlike a friendship, would by in its inherit nature 6 cause damage to the team. Therefore, Coach Ryan wanted the Plaintiffs off the team.

1

7. On September 5, 2014, as a result of the continued harassment based on sexual

8
orientation,Layana attempted to commit suicide. Shorliy thereafter, Coach Ryan refused to allow

9
Haley to play basketball based upon the pretext that Haley did not provide the doctor's file notes

10
and did not provide her's and Layana's gynecology repofis. This was nonsense as the MRI report

11
was complete and the g'ynecology reporls have nothing do with basketball and her injury. Haiey
l2
requested help to allow her to play basketball fi'om the Athletic Director, the team's doctor and

13
the President of University. They all refused to help Plaintiffs because they supported Coach I4
Ryan's position that the Plaintiffs' lesbianism was detrimental to the team and that they should

15
not be allowed to play basketball. At no time herein, did Coach Ryan nor Pepperdine University

1ó
accuse the Piaintiffs of having sex.

17

18 III.
19

FACTS
8. Plaintiffs incotporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

20 paragraphs 1 through 7 as though set forth fully herein
21
9. ln the beginning of February, the Acadernic Cooldinator, Acli -who was selected
22 by the University to heip female basketball piayers maintain good grades. pulled Haley into her
23
office to talk. ln this meeting, Adi asked Haley if there were any gay orbisexual piayers on the
24
team. Haley said no. Although she was aware of multipie giris on the team that were gay and
25
bisexual. she could not answer this question honestly because Pepperdine is exfiemely 26
discrirninatory against the LGBT (Lesbian, Ga1,. 3ir"*ual and Transgender) community.
21

28

-J-
COIvIP LAII T TV FOIT DA]\4 AG ES

007

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 1-2 Filed 01/14/15 Page 4 of 24 Page ID #:8

1 Furthermore, Adi asked Haiey if she was gay. Haley said no. The next week, Adi asked Haley to 2 come into her office. The following dialogue occun ed.

3
Adi: "l noticed that you and Layana have become very/ close."
4
Haley: "Yeah, Layana and I have becorne good friends."

5

Adi: "How close? Like bfß or more than that?"

6

Haley: "'We are just fiiends."

7

ln the stud-v irali roorn, Adi asked Haiey what she was doing for spring break.

I Haley toid her that she was going home to Chicago and that Layana was going to visit Arizona,

9 Adi said "You aren't going to take Layana home with you?" Haley said no. Adi said, "Aren't you

10 going to miss her?" When Ha1e1, and Layana returned fi'orn Vegas where they spent their break,

11 Adi continued asking both Hale1, andLayana about their trip. These questions include but are not

12 lirnited to: What did you do? Where did you sleep? Did you share a bed? Layana told Adi that

13 she did not go to Vegas with Haley. Adi then told Layana that she did not believe Layana and

14 that she knew thatLayana was with Haiey. Neither Haley nor Layana adrnitted to Adi that they

15 went to Vegas together.

16
10. ln March, every time Haley wouid see Adi, she asked Haley about Layana. Adi
17
would ask. "Hou, are you and Layana?" She wouid ask this question in a way suggesting Haley
18
and Layana were in a relationship. Adi nevelasked Haiey how any of her other teammates were
19
doing. Adi would ask Haley if she was going places with Layana on the weekends ancl ask
20
personal questions about what they did together. On March 1 8 2014. Adi asked Haiey if Layana
21
if bought her anything for irer birthday. When Hale1, said no, Adi seerned surprised. She asked
22
Layana took Haley an1,r4,¡.t" for her birlirda5,. Hale¡, said no. Adi suggested a restaurant that
'-)
Layana and Haley go togeti-rer on a date. Haley told Adi that she wouldn't be going witii Layana
24
anywhere on a date. Haley asked Adi very politely to stop asking her about Layana.
25

26

March 18 was the first leadership meeting. After the 2013-2014 season, Coach Ryan had

2l a ne\Ã/ idea for the team. He chose 6 of his teams best "leaders" and began "Leadership Meetings"

28 to discuss theteam's "Core Covenants". The Leadelship Council was madeup of thebest leaders

-4-
COMPLAINT FOIì DAMAGES

008

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 1-2 Filed 01/14/15 Page 5 of 24 Page ID #:9

on the basketbali team: I(r ista. Bria, Ea, and I(eitla as well as the Plaintiffs. Every leadership

1
meeting occurred with only Coach Ryan in iris office. No other coaches were there. Coach Ryan
2
would have them watch videos, write their ideas and opinions discussing hou¡ to make the team

-1
more "successful", and have group cliscussions. He would also discuss his beliefs on what the
4
negatives and positives to their specific team were.
5

6

1. 1

Towards the end of the spring semester, Adi began asking Haley whom she would

7 be living with in the summer. Adi alr¡,a),s asked, "Are you going to be iiving with Layana?"

8 There are four people in each dorm and two people in each room. Adi would ask "Is Layana

9 going to be sleeping in the same room as you?" "Do you guys push your beds together?" "Do you

t0 sleep together?"

11

12. During March and April, Adi was also asking Layana very similar questions. Adi

12 would ask Layana these questions during every weekly academic meeting and every time she was

13 in study hall. Layana toid Adi that Haley was her best fiiend and "noo we are not dating.".Aili

14 asked Layana if she "hung out and did things with her other best friends the same way she does

15 with Haiey." Layana toid her "yes. because Haiey is just my füend." Also. every meeting Layana 16 had with Adi she would aiways say "so how are you and Haley doing?" Adi would ask this

17 question in the tone as if Layana and Haley are dating. Layana told Adi these questions were
1lÒ0 inappropliate and to "please stop."

19

20

3. i

On Aprii 16 at 9 am. Coach Ryan had a leadership meeting in which he offended

21 many of the girls on the leadership council. Coach Ryan spoke on the topic of "lesbianism."

22 Coach Ryan specificall¡, said the word "lesbianism" stating tlie following: "Lesbianism is not

zi toierated on this teatn. It is the reason wh), teams 1ose," "Lesbianism is a big concem in women's

24 basketball."

25

At the end of April. Layana reported to Coach Ryan (no other coaches present) that Adi

26 was constantly atternpting to retain personal information from her regarding her private life.
2l Coach Rvan assured Layana that other tearnmates had also complained about Adi not focusing on

28 academics and he would soon be having a coach monitor the meetings with Adi. Layana told

-)-
CON{PLAINT FOIì. DAMAGES

009

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 1-2 Filed 01/14/15 Page 6 of 24 Page ID #:10

I Coach Ryan that these questions occun ed not only in her academic meetings but when she was in 2 study hall as well.

J
Haley had to report to Adi before she left Pepperdine to tum in her books fi'om the spring
4
semester. Adi and Haley were aione in the academic room, and that is when the questioning
5
began. Adi asked if Haley and Layana were goir"rg on a trip before break. Haley admitted that they
6
were going together to Vegas.
l

8

14. in May, Adi continued to ask Layana about Haley. Layanatold Adi that her

9 constant questions about Haley were irritating her, and she asked Adi why she always questioned

10 her about Haley's friendship. Layana recalls Adi responding in a sarcastic way saying, "Because

i1 you and Haley are BFFs." Adi then questioned Layana saying "Right? You guys are just bffs,

T2 right? Or are you closer than that?" Layana still toid Adi'that "Haley and I are just fr-iends" and to

13 "please stop asking these questions."

14

The day after Adi's birtliday, Adi was teliing Layanahow she ceiebrated the night. Adi

15 told Layana she went to a nice restaurant and then said sarcastically "You should take Haley

16 there sometime for a date, that would be cute." Before Haley came back to school fiom May

17 break, Adi would ask Layana in study hall "Are you excited for Haley to come back?" "Are you
lIOat picking her up froni the uirpoit?" "Wili you guys be staying in the same dorm room for the

19 summet?"

20

21

At the end of May. I(eitra. one of the tearnmates. warned Layana due to a meeting she just

22 had with Coach Ryan. I(eitra confided the content of the meeting to Layana. Coach Ryan asked

23 Keitra the foilowing questions with no other coaches present. "Are you dating Sahara?" "Are

24 Haley and Layana dating?" Sahara is a female student at Pepperdine. and by Coach Ryan asking 25 if I(eitra is dating Sahara. he was impiying she was lesbian. I(eitra denied these questions and

26 asked Coach Ryan wirere he heard these lumors, Coach Ryan said he heard it fro¡r a staff

21 member that the piayers were with everyday, Keitra told Layana to watch what she says around

28 the staff members. Keitra toid Layana that she tirought the "staff member" was Adi or Karissa,

-6-
COMPLAINT FOR DAIV1AGFS

010

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 1-2 Filed 01/14/15 Page 7 of 24 Page ID #:11

1 the athletic trainer. When Haley returned to the University, she confinned with l(eitr-a, that

2 Coach Ryan asked her "Ate Haley and Layana dating?" Keitra told him no. I(eitra also confided

a -)

to Haley that Adi had also asked Keitra if she was dating Sahara.

4 In May, Layana called a nreeting with Coach Ryan to discuss beginning to file her appeal
5
to NCAA. Transfer students are not allowed to play basketball for an entire year-without the
6
appeal. Coach Ryan told Layanathat he would be "stafting the process rigirt away" and he would

also "be in contact with Pepperdine's athletic director. Dr. Potts and the head of compiiance,
8
Brian Banio to push the appeal through." Layanareceived no response fror¡ Coach Ryan about
9
her appeal or progress towards filing the appeal. Layana, as all NCAA athletes, cannot submit
10
their appeal on theil"own. The athiete requires assistance fi'om the University's athletic
11
dep artm ent ( Co ach, athi eti c director,. and compli an ce).
12

13

15. On June 4, Coach Ryan calied individual meetings regarding the training room

t4 and athletic trainer Iiarissa with the entire coaching staff present. In Haley's meeting. Karissa

15 falseiy accused Haley of breaking many rules in the training room dating all the way back in

16 April. Haley said the accusations were not true, but Coach Ryan cut Haley off and told her she

17 was lying and that she was wrong. Haley then told the coaches that l(arissa is very

18 unprofessional. Coach Ryan asked her hou,. so Hale), tolci them about hou, I(arissa was asking

19 Haley if she ever dated girls and that l(arissa toid her that coach Trisha was ga)/ wiricli made

20 Haley feel uncomfortable. Coacir Trisira laughed and said, "That is not true!" Sire proceeded to

21 let Coach Ryan yell at Haley and accuse her of iying.

22

On June 7?, Layana met with Dr. Potts. ln the meeting with Dr Potts. Layana said, ,.I had

a meeting witir Coach Ryan in May about filing rny appeal to play rìght away. But I have not seen 24 any progress. I wanted to know what is going on with the process," Dr Potts responded to Layana 25 saying, "i had no idea about your appeal," Layana was \/ery confused and she said, "l don't 26 understand wl-ry Coach R¡ran cloesn't want to do my appeal. I feel iike he doesn't want me to play 27 right away. I don't understand why and I don't knou' who can heip me if Coach Ryan doesn't
28 want to file my appeal." Then Dr Potts said, "l'li take care of it. Just send me your NCAA appeal

CON4]'LAIN]' FOR DAMAGES

011

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 1-2 Filed 01/14/15 Page 8 of 24 Page ID #:12

1 letteL." Although Layana sent information regarding her appeal to Dr.Potts through ernail after

2 the nreeting.Layana did not receive any follow up of her appeal to this da5,. 11r. University

3 announced news this summer that their men's basketl¡ali player A.J, Lapray had received NCAA

4 approval fi"oni his appeal to play immediateiy after transfening from Oregon. Fufihennore.

5 Layana anived to Pepperdine six months before A.J. arrived to Pepperdine, yet his appeal was 6 filed and approved first.

7
Later in the month of June, Coach Ryan made another cornment referring to intra-team
8
dating. Coach Ryan made the foliowing statement. "When I was coaching for the LA Sparks, two
9
of our players were dating and they broke up in season. That was the reason our team fell aparl
10
and lost." Coach Ryan's comments about lesbians were becoming obsessive and very strange.
11
Both Layana and Haley's coaches at their previous P AC 12 School wortld näver have
12
conversations about intra-team dating and never did they use the word lesbianism. Women's
13
basketball is stereotyped for having many iesbians, -and it is more expected than prevented.
14
When, Haley and Layana heard Coach Ryan's statement that he was against the iesbian lifestyle
15
within his team. it made then think Coach Ryan would pull their scholarships if he confinned
16
their relationship. At this point, Layana began to suffer from severe depression.
17

i8

During June, ti'ie foilowing events took place. Adi asked Layana "So do you guys push

19 your beds together in the dorm roorn? Do you guys sleep iogether?" and whenever Layana sau,

20 Adi on Fridays in study hall she would ask her"Are you taking your girl home with irou this 21 weekend?" referring to Haler,. One Fridav she asked Layana what she was going to do over the

22 weekend and she told Acli she was going to Disneyiand. Adi then asked Layana "Oli are you

/-) taking Hale¡, to Disneyland?" Layana said "No. I'm taking m)/ sister with me" and she asked Adi

.\^
:.t

wh¡, s¡. wanted to knou, if she was going to take Haley. Adi replied sarcastically. "Because you

25 guys are BFFs'". These comments occurreci when Layana was in study hall supen,ised by Adi.

26
When Layana achieved 3.0 GPA , the team rule required her to stud1,l¡ study hall for 2
77
hours instead of 5 hours pel week. Because of Adi's questions into Layana's sexual orientation,
28

-8-
C'OI\4PLAiNI' I' OR DAMAGES

012

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 1-2 Filed 01/14/15 Page 9 of 24 Page ID #:13

1 she was iooking forwar"d to the reduction of study hall irours. However, Coach Ryan changed up 2 to the requitement fiom 3.0 to 3.2 immediately after Layana reached a 3.0. Notwithstanding, aJ Coach Ryan knew Adi's continued questioning during study hall was upsetting to Layana. This 4 increased requirement only applied to Layana since the other teammates had either below 3.0 or 5 above 3.2.

6
When La5tana and Haley were the only two practicing, Bria, one of Plaintiffs' teammates,
n
came up to Haley and Layana and asked if they had a minute to talk. Bria said, "Hey guys, i just
8
want to let you know, be careful what you tell Adi because she telis Coach Ryan everything."
9
Bria wouid not say why she made this statement to only Haley and Layana, but she wamed them
10
to be very careful. as if Adi had told Coach Ryan something bad about Haley and Layana. After
11
Bria left, Layanaand Haley believed that Adi told Coacir Ryan that they were Outing. They did
T2
not say anything to Bria because they were keeping their relationship \/ery secret. Haiey and
13
Layanaagreed to make a more conscious efforl to keep their relationship confrdential. Haley and
I4 Layana were very afiaid that if Coach Ryan found out they were dating, he would take away their
15
scholarships, especiall¡' after the ieadership meeting when he stated, "lesbianism is not toierated
16
here."
T7

18

6. i

On juiy 28, Coach Ryan sent a text message to l(rista, Plaintiffs' teammate, that

19 he was disappointed that she wanted to live off-campus with Haley and Layana. Robie, another

20 teantmate, also told Haley and Layana that she was told by Coach Ryan not to iive with Haley

21 and Layana ofÊcampus because they were bad influences. Robie wamed Haley and Layana that

22 Coach Ryan is defaming thern and trying to turn their teammates against thern, Robie said she

23 was confused as to why he was doing this. Robie did not know that Haley and Layana were

24 dating.

25
11. On August 25, Pepperdine commenced the fall semester and it was the first day of
26
school. Haiey and her teammate Allie were practicing in the g),m. Allie told Haiey that Coach
27
Jordan had asked her if Layana and Haley were dating. Later that same night, Haiey asked Bria if
28

-9-
CON4PLAINT FOR DAN4AGES

013

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 1-2 Filed 01/14/15 Page 10 of 24 Page ID #:14

1 Coach Ryan had asked her whether Layana and Haley were dating. Bria confirmed that it was
2 true

3
On August 26,Layana had a meeting with Coach Ryan and Coach Mallorie. ln this
4
meeting, she asked Coach Ryan if he had been asking several teammates if Haley and her were
5
dating. He denied these allegations, Layana told Coach Ryan two piayers on the team said that he
6
had asked them if she and Haley were dating . Layana aiso told him that Coach Jordan asked Allie
7
if they were dating. Coach Ryan said "I know for a fact that that's not true. My staff doesn't
8
gossip. And gossip is what gets people frred." Coach Ryan continued to deny that he asked any
9
girls, and he claimed that the players were making up these rumors to start drama. Coach Ryan
10
suggested thatLayana call a team meeting and address this rumor. Layana said she did not think
11
that was necessary when she could end the rumor in his office right then and there. Then Coach
T2
Ryan called Allie into this meeting to confirm her statement. Allie confirmed that Coach Jordan
13
asked her. Coach Ryan then calied Coach Jordan on speakerphone. Coach.Iordan adrnitted that
14
she asked Allìe if Layana and Haley were dating. Coach Ryan asked Allie to leave and then kept
15
asking Layana who were tire other two girls who said he asked about Haley and Layana dating.
16
Layana did not release any names. Layana told Coach Ryan that she promised her teammates she
17
would not get them involved, and ali sire wanted to do was end the rumor. Coach Mallorie asked
18
Layana why this situation bothers her so much. Layana answered. "Because I don't want that
19
reputation at tiris Christian school." Then. Coach Mallorie asked, "So what is really going on
20
between you and Haley? Are you dating?" Layana told Coach Mallorie they were not dating,
2T

22

18. On September 3, Layana went to the academic room with her teammates. Iieitra,

/J Kelsey. Whitney, to do their study hali but there were no more seats left. The players ail signed in :a+À together and did their homework in the locker room. Adi went into the study hall roonr and sau,

25 that they all signed in but were not in the stud)/ hall room. Adi called Coach Ryan and told him

26 that specifically Layana checked in for stud1, hall but was not in the study hall roonl,

27
On September 5, Coach Ryan calied a meeting with Coach Mallorie, Adi. and Layana. In
28

_ 10 _
COIVIPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

014

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 1-2 Filed 01/14/15 Page 11 of 24 Page ID #:15

I the meeting. Coach Ryan justifìed Adi's accusations that Layana was not in the study hall room 2 on September 3. Coach Ryan said he discussed it with Adi. and Layana would be receiving a J punishment. Out of all of the players tirat were studying in the locker-roort, Layana was the onl1, 4 one to get punished b1, Çs¿.1., Ryan and Adi for not being in the academic rooni for study hall. 5 The other girls were not punished because Adi claimed that they ali left her a note on her desk 6 before going to the locker room. Layana was with the girls the entire time and she knew for fact 7 that they ail did not ieave any notes. The punishment was extra studv hali hours the followine
8 week.

9
AÍter the meeting, Layana was sitting outside the coaches' offrce with Haiey finishing her
10
homework. Adi walked up to Layana's desk with a book she needed for class. lnstead of handing
11
it to Layana; Adi'slammed the book on the desk in fi-ont of her face. Layana packed up her
12
backpack and told Haley that she needed to leave. That night T ayana atternpted to commit
13
suicide.
14

15

On September 9, Haley toid Coach Ryan that she wouid not be at practice on Friday

16 September 12tr' because she is getting tested for cerical cancer.

17
On September 16, Haley met with Dr. Green at 2 pm. He told her that she was cieared for
18
irer condition. During the days leading up to this doctor's appointment, Haiel, was harasseci by
19
Karissa to release all meclical records as she claimed, "it is obvious you are hidinc and i¡ring
20
about something". These comments were not true. Before Haley ieft the appointment. Dr. Green
21
toid her that he would need to run a mandatory urine test to cl'reck if she had a urjne infection.
22
,) Hale1, requested Dr. Green's notes from the visit to see exactly what she was tested for, but the
Pepperdine Health Center did no provide her with any of Dr. Green's notes fiom her visit.
24

25

Within hours after leaving the irealth center. Haley received an email fioni l(arissa

26 stating, "You r¡,ill not be clearecl for parlicipation until the documentation fi'orn the spine

27 specialist has been blought to the athletic medicine center." As Haley had alread¡, left campus. 1i(ì0 she provided the documentation the following da.r,to the training room.

- 1t (]O\4PLAINT FOR DAMAGES

015

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 1-2 Filed 01/14/15 Page 12 of 24 Page ID #:16

1

On Septeml'rer 17, Haley calied the health center and asked to speak with Dr. Green. The

2 front desk would not release his contact infonnation or the docunentation from the visit. Instead,

J the fi'ont desk contacted Dr. Green on Haley's behalf with her question as to why she was not

4 cleared. He responded via ernail to the front desi< that he did clear Haiey because he was unaware

5 of her spine condition and Haiey could not be cieared untii she brought documentation to

6 Karissa. That same day Haley brought her MRl, Diagnosis, and treatment of prescription to the

7 athletic training room. Within hours. she received back-to-back emaiis from Karissa and Kevin.
a()
Karissa's email at 1:38 prn: "The documents that you have provided regarding your doctor's
9
visit at the Soutirern Califomìa Orthopedic Institute do provide us with enough information. What we
10 need is a diagnosis, treatment plan, and any treatment recommends that tlie physician has prescribed."
11

12

I(evin al2:34 pm: "In order for medrcal clearance to be considered at Pepperdine you

t3 have been asked to provide the athietic training center detaiis of a recent physician visit regard.ing

14 your sacrum. Today you provided an MRI report to the athletic training center... Piease get us the 15 following infonnation regarding your sacrum; All the physician notes on diagnosis and plan for i6 tLeatment."

17
Haley called Coach Ryan and expiained that her doctor's office already released all of the
18
documentation they have on fiie for her. She asked Coach Ryan if he can come with her to the
19
training room to speak with l{evin and Iiarissa about her seeing the basketball team orlhoped.ic if
2t)
it is necessary,, to be cieared for her tailbone iryurl,. Coach Ryan told hel that he would not help
21
her. Theri. Hale¡, sent an email to l(er¡in a¡d addressed I(evin's request to a diagnosis and
?2
treatment. "Regarding your ooncems for the diagnosis not beine in the documentation, please note
23
:a+Á page 3 of my paperwork. Located above the prescription note is "DX" (diagnosis): "Coccygeal"
(tailbone) pain." Neither Kevin nor Karissa responded to Haley's email that tire diagnosis was on page 3.
25

26

On Septernber 18. Haley met with I(arina u,ho is an assistant for the Athletic Director.

21 Dr. Potts. She told i(arina that she felt Coach Ryan did not want her on the team an¡mrore. She

28 explained that Coach Ryan had told hel there was nothing he could do about it and that neither

-12-
COh4PLAINT FOR D,AMAGES

016

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 1-2 Filed 01/14/15 Page 13 of 24 Page ID #:17

1 Dr. Potts nor President Benton could help her. I(arina told Haley that Dr, Potts was not there, but 2 he could meet r¡,ith her at 9 a.m. the next morning.

J
On September 19, Haiey rnet with Dr. Potts and Karina in hìs office. Dr. Potts was
4
extremel¡, rude in this meeting and he would not let her explain her side of the story. Within
5
minutes, Haley was in teals by the way ire was yelling at her for bringirig this issue to his
6
attention. Not only did Haley complain to Dr. Potts about not being cleared, Haley told him that
7
Layana was also not cleared and hadn't been cieared to practice since May. Haley told Dr, Potts
8
that it felt like the staff was trying to keep both Haley and Layana off the couft and get them
9
kicked out of the school. After class that day, Haley called Coach Ryan, On the phone, Haley said
10
sire needed to take the weekend to decide if sire could be a parl of the team. She said "i am very
i1 onttuppy with the way I have been treated here". Coach Ryan dicl not ask her why, but he said he
12
wanted a decision by Sunday morring at 8 am because he did not want to "drag it on." Haley told
l_1
him tirat she needed until Monday to make a good decision.
14

15

On Monday September 2T,Haley called Coach Ryan and told hirn "l am not ready to

16 make a decision today and I want to talk to you when you return from Florida on Thursday to

17 give me enough tirne to think". Coach Ryan became very angÐ/ and said "No. I do not want to

18 drag this on. You wili give me a decision by 5 pnt." Haley told Coach Ryan "You oan say

19 whatever you waut but I will not sign papers that I voiuntarily quit. If you want to kick me off the

20 teani just because I need more time to make a decision, tirat's your choice". Coach Ryan refused

21 and toid Haley to give irini a decision b), 5 prn. He said ire wouid send an email to Dr. Potts

22 saying that Haiey would voiuntariiS, quit if she did not sive Coach Ryan a decision by that tirne.

23

a/,

On September 24^ Haley sent Dr. Potts the following emaii. "l would iike to infonn you

-T
of my last communication with Coach Ryan over text. On Monda5,, September 22. I

25

stated to him that "l have not rnade a decision to quit. I would iike to discuss the situation.wiren

26

you come back fi'om Fiorida. I have not r¡oiuntarily quit nor did I ever agree to Cloach Ryan's

27

deadline."

28

- 13 COÌ\4Pi-AINT FOIì DAMAGF :i

017

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 1-2 Filed 01/14/15 Page 14 of 24 Page ID #:18

I

Dr. Potts replied to Haie1, on the same da)/, "l understand that you have expressed

2 concems regal"ding your participation as a student-athlete here and that an investigation into

J those concerns has begun." "Until then, as you requested, you are relieved fiom all activities

4 related to our women's basketball tean'r."

5
On November 7, Haley received the following letter from the Title IX investigator
6
l Tabatha. "l have conducted a thorough investigation of your claims and have attached a letter,
which represents the conclusion to the investigation." "After thoroughly investigating the
8
allegations, I have found that there is insuff,rcient evidence to conciude that harassment or sexual
9
orientation discrimination occurred." "According to the team doctor, Dr. Gary Green has not
10
received this documentation to medically assess your fitness to piay."
11

I2

19. On December 1, Haley sent to the University the following note from her doctor.

13 "Based on her previous MRI findings, the patient's diagnosis and treatment pian remain

14 unchanged. lt is acceptable for the patient to retum to basketball without restriction. No more

15 notes/treatment are necessary at this time." Notwithstanding neither Haiey nor Layana have been

16 cleared to play basketbali.

17

I\/

ST

18

ON
\/l

T IA

CONSTITUTION. ARTICLE 1" $1

I9

20. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference eacir and every allegation contained in

20

21 paragrapirs 1 through 19 as though set foúh fully herein.

22
21. Plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of privacy as to their sexual orientatiori
23
while attending Pepperdine University from intrusion into their privacy by Defendant pepperdine
:1a/1
University, Defendant Coach Ryan. his assistant basketball coaches. academic coordinator. and 25
tralners. 26

2l

22, Defendant Pepperdine Universitl,, Defer-rdant Coach Ryan, his assistant basketball

28 coaches. academic coordinator, and trainers intentionally intruded on their right of privacy at the

- ttla -
COMPLAINT FOR D-AMAGES

018

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 1-2 Filed 01/14/15 Page 15 of 24 Page ID #:19

i University by asking questions lelating to or to detenline Plaintiffs' sexual or-ientation and 2 demanded that they provide unlimited access to theil gynecology medical records. Defendant 3 Pepperdine Universit), was aware of Coach Ryan and his assistant basketball coaches, academic 4 coordinator and trainers' inttusion into plaintiffs' right of prìvacy and dicl nothing to stop andlot" 5 prevent the intrusions but instead ratified it.

6
23. Plaintiffs were harmed, including but not limited to, emotional distress, which in
7
the case of Plaintiff Layana. caused her to attempt suicide, to leave the Univer-sity and to give up
8
her scholarship, and in the case of Plaintiff Haley. to give up basketball, to leave the U'rversity
9
and to give up her schoiarship. Defendants' intrusion into Plaintiffs' right of privacy were
10
substantial factors in causing Plaintiffs' aforesaid hann.
11

I2

24. Defendant Coach Ryan is responsibie for his own conduct and for that of his

13 assistant coaches, trainers and academic coordinator u¡ho were under his controi and direction

14 and he was aware of the aforesaid conduct but refused to stop it and/or prevent it, and instead he 15 condoned it. Defendant Pepperdine University ratified the conduct of Defendant Coach Ryan. his 16 assistant coaches, trainers and academic coordinator. The athletic director and the president were 17 aware of tire above conduct but failed to make a meaningful investigation and to remedy the
18 sltuatlon

t9
25. Defendants' conduct was severe, pervasive ancl objectiver5z sfi¿rrive. Therefore.
20
the Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages.
21

22 \/.
,.1

2NI) CAIJSE OF ACTION: BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFFS A

ST ALL

DEF'ENT)
LIMITED

TS. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA 537 INCLUDtrNG BUT NOT TO CALTFORNIA EDUCA ONAL CODE 8220.221. 66251. 66270

:1".4|

Disparate Treatment - Discrimination

25

26. Piaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in

26 paraEaphs I tirrough 25 as though set forth full1, hs¡sir.

27

27. Defendant Coach Ryan intentionalil, discriminated against the plaintiffs by

28 including but not lirnited to the follou,ing. He continualil, ¿s¡.¿ the plaintiffs and other.s

- 15 C]O]\4PLAIN i FOR DAMAGES

019

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 1-2 Filed 01/14/15 Page 16 of 24 Page ID #:20

1 questions about Plaintifls sexual orientation. He encouraged his assistant coaches. academic 2 coordinator and trainers to ask questions about Plaintiffs' sexual orientation, The trainer.s
J demanded that Plaintiffs fuinish their complete current and future gynecology medical records.
4 Haley was pressured to sign a release fonl that wouid aliow tl're trainers access the her
5 gynecolog¡' recotds for the next seven years. Defendant Coach Ryan punished the Plaintiffs 6 unfairiy for minor Violations. He refused to al1ow Layanato attend basketball practice because of
7 her inju¡', He lefused to process Lavana's appeal to the NCAA so that she can play immediately.
B He refused to allow Haiey to play basketball on the basis that she had not provided sufficient 9 medical information on her non-basketbail injur1,. He refused to irelp Haiey to get medical 10 ciearance fi'om the tl^ainers.

11
28. Pepperdine University was aware of Coach Ryan'and his assistant basketball
12
coaches, academic coordinator and trainers' discnmination and ratified it.
13

14

29. The plaintiffs leceived disparate treatment as the¡, were tl.eated differentiy than the

15 other students in the University including but not iimited to the following. Other students were

16 not subject to peruasirze questioning about their sexual orientation. No otirer team players were

17 required to submit their gvnecology rneclical records. Other playels were not punishecl unfairly

18 for minor violations andior girren lesser punishnents. Other injured piayer-s were aliowed to

19 attend basketball practice. Appeals to the NCAA so that the basketball piayers couid play

20 immediateiy wet'e routtnely and imrrediately processed f-or other player-s. Haley did proyide

21 sufficient medical infonnation to the trainers about her non-basketball injur¡,. Other piayers were 11 not required to provide ll1ore tiran miuimal amount of medical dooumentation f'or non-baslietball

,.) iniuries. Other piayers would have tire suppofi of their coaches in getting medical clearance fi-om

24 the trainers.

25
30. Defendants' motive in the discrimination was to get the Piaintiffs off the
26
basketbali team because tirey were lesbians who were in a reiationshìp. Defendant Coach Ryan
27 believed that this wouid cause the basketball team to lose games. This discriminatorv and
28

- lô -
C]ON4PLAINT FOP. D/.,N4.AGES

020

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 1-2 Filed 01/14/15 Page 17 of 24 Page ID #:21

1 wrongful belief was a substantial factor in causing Piaintiffs' harm

2
31. As a result, the Plaintiffs were hanried. This included, among other things, the
J
emotional distress, which resulted in the attempted suicide of Layana, giving up her scholarship
4
and leaving the University and the extreme emotional distress of Haley and the disquaiification
5
of Haie¡, from the basketball team which caused her to give up her scholarship and to leave the
6
University.
7

8

32. Defendant Coach Ryan is responsible for his own conduct.

9
33. Defendant Pepperdine University ratified the conduct of Defendant Coach Ryan
10

11

34, The University, at the request of Haiey andLayart4 investigated the

I2 discrirninatory and harassing treatment of Plaintiffs. The report found that there was no evidence

13 supporting Plaintiffs' compiaint. The investigation was a cover up. It was not done by an outside

14 independent investigator. important witnesses were either not questioned or not asked the

15 revealing questions.

16
35, Defendants' conduct was severe, pervasive and objectively offensive. Therefore.
17
the Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages.
18

19

Harassment

20
36. Defendant Coach Ryan intentionalll, harassed the Plaintiffs because they were
21
lesbians who were having a relationship by including but not iimited to the following. He
22
/) continualiy asked questions about their sexual orientation, He encouraged his assistant coaches,
academic coordinator and trainers to ask questions about Plaintiffs' sexual orientation. He
/^.Á+ punished the Piaintiffs unfairlS, for minor r¡iolations. The trainers demanded the Piaintiffs fumish
25
their cornplete cument and future gynecologist rnedicai report for no legitimate reason. He
26
refused to allou, Layana to attend basketball practice because of her injury. He refused to plocess
27
Layana's appeal to the NCAA so that she can play irnmediatel¡,. He refused to allou, Haley to
28

-11 (.OMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

021

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 1-2 Filed 01/14/15 Page 18 of 24 Page ID #:22

1 play basketball on the basis that she had not provided suffrcient medical information on her non-

2 basketball injury,. He refused to help Haley to get medical clearance form the trainers.

J
37. The harassing conduct was so severe, widespread, and persistent that a reasonable
4
person in Plaintiffs' circumstances would have considered the university's environment to be
5
hostile or abusive.
6

7

38, The Piaintifß considered the university's environment to be hostile and abusive,

I 39. The Piaintiffs were harmed as a result of the harassment. This included, among
9
other things, the emotional distress that resulted in the attempted suicide of Layana, giving up her
10
scholarship and leaving the University. The harassment caused Haiey the extreme emotional
11
distress, prevented her from playing basketbàll and forced her to give up her scholarship and to
I2
leave the University.
13

t4

40. Defendants' conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs' harm.

15
41. Defendant Coach Ryan is responsible for iris own conduct and for that of his
16
assistant coaches and tt'ainers and academic coordinator who were undel his control and
17
direction.
18

19

42. Defendant Pepperdine University ratified the conduct of Defendant Coach Ryan,

20 iris assistant coaches. trainers and academic coordinator.

21
43. The University at the request of Haley investigated the discriminatoryz ¿¡d
22
harassing treatment of Plaintiffs. The reporl found that there was no evidence supporting
)3
Plaintiffs' complaint. The investigation was a cover up. it was not done by an outside
24 independent investigator. lmpofiant witnesses were either not questioned or not asked the
25 reveaiing questions.
26

27

44. Defendants' conduct was severe. pervasive and objectively offensive, Therefore.

28 the Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages.

- 18-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

022

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 1-2 Filed 01/14/15 Page 19 of 24 Page ID #:23

1

Retaliation

2
45. Defendant Coach Ryan believed that the Plaintiffs were lesbians who were in a
J
relationship and would cause the team to lose games, and therefore, he wanted them off the team.
4
The Plaintiffs complained to the athietic dilector that Defendant Coach Ryan had harassed and
5
discriminated against them because he believed that the Plaintiffs were lesbians and who were
6
dating.
7

8

46. The Plaintiffs'reporling of Defendant Coach Ryan's conduct to the athletic

9 director was a motivating factor for the Defendant Coach to disqualify Haley from the team,

t0 which would result inLayana quitting the team.

11
' 47. The Plaintîffs were harmed. This inciuded, among other things, the emotional
12
distress which resulted in the attempted suicide of Layana, grving up her scholarship and leaving
13
the University. The harassment caused Haley the extreme emotional distress, prevented her from
14
playing basketball and forced her to give up her scholarship and to leave the University.
1]J<

16

48. Defendants Coach Ryan's retaiiatory conduct was a substantial factor in causing

17 Plaintiffs' harm.

18
49. Defendant Coach Ryan is r"esponsible for his own conduct and Defendant
19
Pepperdine University ratified the conduct of Defendant Coach Ryan, 20

21

50. The University, at the request of Haley and Lavana. investigated the

22 discrirninatory and harassing treatment of Piaintiffs, The report found that there was no evidence

23 supporting Plaintiffs' complaint, The investigation was a cover up, It was not done bv an outside

24 independent investigator. lmportant witnesses were either not questioned or not asked the

25 revealing questions.

26
51. Defendants' conduct was se\/ere, pervasive and objectively offensive. Therefore,
21
the Piaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages.
28

- t9 -
CON4PLAINT FOR DA]VI-AGES

023

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 1-2 Filed 01/14/15 Page 20 of 24 Page ID #:24

1 \/I.
2 aJ 4

3RD CAUSE OF ACTION: BROUGHT BY PLAINTIFFS AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS. VIOLATION OF TITLE IX Disparate Treatment - Discrimination
52. Plaintìffs incotporate by refelence each and every allegation contained in

5
paragraphs 1 through 51 as though set forth fully herein
6

7

53. Defendant Coach R¡ran intentionally discriminated against the Plaintiffs b¡r

8 including but not limited to the following. He continually asked the Plaintiffs and others

9 questions about Piaintifls sexual odentation. He encouraged his assistant coaches, academic

10 coordinator and trainers to ask questions about Plaintiffs' sexual orientation. The trainers

1I dernanded that,Plaintiffs furnish.their cornpiete cunent and future gynecology medical records.

12 Haiey was pressured to sign a release form that whouid allou, the treainers access to her

TJ gynecoiogy records for the next seven years. Coach Ryan punished the Plaintiffs unfairly for

14 minor violations. He refused to allow Layana to attend basketball practice because of her iryury.

t5 He refused to process Layana's appeal to the NCAA so that she can piay imrnediately. He refused

16 to aliow Haley to piay basketbali on tire basis that she had not provided suffrcient medical

17 information on her non-basketball injury. He refused to help Haley to get medical ciearance form

18 the tlainers

19
54. Pepperdine Universitl, was aware of Coach Ryan and his assistant basketball
20
coaches, academrc coordinator and trainers' discrimination and ratif,ied it.
21

22

55. The piaintiffs received disparate treatment as they were tleated differently than the

,J other students in the Universitl, in"trrd'ng but not iirnited to the following. Other students were

a,L^'+ not subject to pervastve questioning about their sexual orientation. No other team players were

2,5 required to submit their gynecology r¡edical records. Other piayers were not punished unfailly

26 for minor violations and/or girren lesser punishments. Othel injuled piayers were allowed to

27 attend basketball practice. Appeals to the NCAA so that tire basketball players could pla1,

Õo irnmediately were routinel.v aud immediateiy processed for other playels. Hale5, did provide

-20-
CON,IPL,¡lINï l'OP. D AMAG ES

024

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 1-2 Filed 01/14/15 Page 21 of 24 Page ID #:25

1 sufficient medical information to the trainers about her non-basketball inlury. Other players were 2 not required to provide more than minimal amount of rnedicai documentation for non-basketball Ja injuries. Other players would have the support of their coaches in getting medical clearance from 4 the trainers.

5
56' Defendants' motive in the discrimination was to get the Plaintiffs off the
6
basketball team because the), were lesbians who were in a relationship. Defendant Coach Ryan
7
beiieved that this would cause the basketbali team to lose games. This discriminatory and
8
wrongful beiief was a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs' harm.
9

10

57. As a result, the Plaintiffs were hanned. This inciuded, among other things, the

1.1 emotional distress, which resulted in the attempted suicide of Layana, giving up her scholarship

12 and leaving the University and the extreme emotional distress of Haley and the disqualification

13 of Haley from the basketbali team which caused her to give up her scholarship and to leave the

14 University.

15
58. Defendant coach Ryan is responsible for his own conduct.
16

17

'59

Defendant Pepperdine University ratified the conduct of Defendant Coach Rvan

18
60. The Univel"sit¡,, ¿1 the request of Haley and Layana. investigated the
19
20 discriminatory and irarassing treatment of Plaintiffs. The report fou¡d that there was no evidence supporting Piaintiffs' cornplaint. The investigation was a cover up. It was not done by an outside
21
independent inr¡estigator. impofiant witnesses were either not questioned or not asked the
22
r'evealing questions.
,-)

:1-/"11

61. Defendants' conduct was severe, pen,asive and objectiveiy offensive, Therefore,

25 the Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages.

26 Harassment
2l

z8

62

Defendant Coach Ryan intentionaliy harassed the Plaintiffs because thev were

-2t -
COMPLAINT FOR DA\4AGES

025

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 1-2 Filed 01/14/15 Page 22 of 24 Page ID #:26

1 lesbians who were iraving a relationship by including but not limited to the following. He 2 continually asked questions about their sexual orientation . He encouraged his assistant coaches,

J academic coordinator and tlainers to ask questions about Plaintiffs' sexual orientation. He

4 punished the Plaintiffs unfairly for minor violations. The trainers demanded the Plaintiffs fumish

5 their complete current and future gynecologist medical repofi fol no iegitimate reason. He 6 refused to ailow Layana to attend basketball practice because of her iryury. He refused to process 1 Layana's appeal to the NCAA so that she can piay immediately, He refused to allow Haley to 8 play basketbali on the basis that she had not provided sufficient medical information on her non9 basketball injury, He refused to help Haley to get rnedical clearance form the trainers.

10
63. The harassing conduct was so severe, widespread, and persistent that a reasonable
l1 person in Plaintiffs' circumstances would have considered the university's environment to be
12
hostile or abusive.
13

14

64. The Plaintiffs considered the university's environment to be hostiie and abusive.

15

i6

65. The Plaintiffs were harmed as a result of the harassrnent. This included, among

other things, the etnotional distress that lesulted in the attempted suicide of Lavana, giving up irer
17

scholarship and leaving the University. The harassrnent caused Haley extreme emotional distress,
18

t9 prevented irer frorn playing basketball and forced her to give up her schoiarship and to lear¡e the

Univelsity.

20

21

66. Defendants' conduct was a substantial factor in oausing Plaintiffs' hann.

11

,J

61. Defendant Coach Ryan is responsible for his own cond,uct and for that of his

assistant coaches and trainers and academic coordinator who were under his controi and 24
direction, 25

26

68. Defendant Pepperdine University ratifìed the conduct of Defendant Coach Rvan,

27 his assistant coacires, trainers and academic coordinator.

28

-22-
COMPLAINT FOR DA.MAGES

026

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 1-2 Filed 01/14/15 Page 23 of 24 Page ID #:27

1

69' The University, at the request of Haley and Layana, tire discriminatory and

2 harassing treatment of Plaintiffs. The report found that there was no evidence supporling

J Plaintifß' compiaint. Tire investigation was a cover up. It was not done by an outside

4 independent investigator, impoftant witnesses were either not questioned or not asked the

5 revealing questions.

6

n

70. Defendants' conduct was severe, pervasive and objectively offensive. Therefore,

the Piaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages.
8

9

Retaliation

10
71. Defendant Coach Ryan believed that the Plaintiffs were iesbians who were in a
11
t2 relationship and would cause the team to lose games, and therefore, he wanted them off the team i3 The Plaintifß complained to the athietic director that Defendant Coach Ryan had harassed and I4 discriminated against them because he beiieved that the Plaintiffs were iesbians and who were
dating.
15

16

72' Tire Plaintiffs' reporting of Defendant Coach Ryan's conduct to the atirletic

17 director was a rnotivating factor for the Defendant coach to disqualiflr Haley from the tearri,

18 which would result in Layana quitting the team.

19
73, The Plaintiffs were hamred. This included, among other things, the emotional
20
distress which resulted in the attempted suicide of Layana, giving up her scholarship and leavi'g
21
') ') the University. Tiie harasstnent caused Haley the extreme emotionai distress, prevented her from
playing basketball and forced her to give up her scholarship and to leave the Universitl,.
'-)

24

74. Defendants Coach Ryan's retaliatorl, conduct was a substantial factor in causing

25 Plaintiffs' hann.

26
75. Defendant Coach Ryan is responsible for iris own conduct and Defèndant
27
Pepperdine university ratified the conduct of Defendant coach Rvan.
28

CON4PLAINT iôn DAI\4AGES

027

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 1-2 Filed 01/14/15 Page 24 of 24 Page ID #:28

1

76. The University, at the request of Haley and Layana. investigated the

2 discriminatory and harassing treatment of Piaintiffs. The report found that there was no evidence

aJ supporling Plaintiffs' complaint. The investigation was a covel'up. it was not done by an outside

4 independent investigator, Impofiant witnesses were either not questioned or not asked the

5 revealing questions..

6
77. Defendants' conduct was severe, pervasive and objectively offensive. Therefore,
1
the Piaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages.
8

9

RELIEF REOUESTED

10 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgrneni against Defendanr as follou's:

11

a. For compensatory damages;

12

b, For emotionai distress;

13

c. For punitive darnages;

14

d. For prejudgnrent and post judgment interestl

15

e. For costs of suitl

16

f.. For attomey's fees: and for

17

g. Such other and fuither relief as this coufl may deem proper and just, including but

not limited to, a coutl order that tire University and its staff do not inquire dirãctl1,

18

ol indirectly as to students' sexual orientation.

19

20 DATED: December I 0. 2014
21

ALAN BURTON NEWMAN. PLC

22

By

23

Alan Burlon N

Esq

24

Attomey for Piaintiffs.

Haiey Videckis

25

Layana White

26

2l

28

-24-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

028

 </s> Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:1

ANDERSON, MCPHARLIN & CONNERS LLP LAWYERS 707 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 4000 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-3623 TEL (213) 688-0080 • FAX (213) 622-7594

1 PAULA TRIPP VICTOR (Bar No. 113050)
ptv@amclaw.com
2 PETER B. RUSTIN (Bar No. 181734)
pbr@amclaw.com
3 ANDERSON, McPHARLIN & CONNERS LLP
707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4000
4 Los Angeles, California 90017-3623
TELEPHONE: (213) 688-0080  FACSIMILE: (213) 622-7594
5 Attorneys for Defendants,
6 RYAN WEISENBERG and PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

10

11 HALEY VIDECKIS and LAYANA WHITE,
12 Plaintiffs,
13 vs.
14 RYAN WEISENBERG, an individual,
15 and PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY, a corporation doing business in
16 California,

Case No. 2:15-CV-00298 NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441

17

Defendants.

Trial Date: None

18

19 TO THE CLERK OF THIS COURT:

20

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants RYAN WEISENBERG and

21 PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY (“Defendants”) hereby remove to the United States

22 District Court, Central District of California, the state court action styled “Haley

23 Videckis, et al. v. Ryan Weisenberg, et al.” bearing Case No. SC123498, which

24 action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the

25 County of Los Angeles on December 10, 2014, and served on Defendants on

26 December 15, 2014.

27 / / /

28 / / /

1271554.1 05764-048

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:2

ANDERSON, MCPHARLIN & CONNERS LLP LAWYERS 707 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 4000 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-3623 TEL (213) 688-0080 • FAX (213) 622-7594

1

GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL

2

1. This Court has original jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C.

3 § 1331, on the basis of federal question, in that it arises under Title IX, 20 U.S.C.

4 § 1681(a). This action may be removed by the Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

5 § 1441(a) in that it is a civil action brought in a state court of which the district

6 courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.

7

2. On December 10, 2014, Plaintiffs HALEY VIDECKIS and LAYANA

8 WHITE (“Plaintiffs”) commenced an action against Defendants in the Superior

9 Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, bearing Case

10 No. SC123498.

11

3. A true and correct copy of the Complaint (the “Complaint”), and all

12 other papers, process, pleadings and orders served upon Defendants, are attached as

13 “Exhibit A” to the attached Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor (“Victor Decl.”).

14

4. The Complaint alleges causes of action against Defendants for

15 Violation of Right of Privacy Under California Constitution, Article 1, § 1;

16 Violation of California AB 537 including but not limited to California Educational

17 Code § 220, 221, 66251, 66270; and Violation of Title IX.

18

5. The Plaintiffs served the Complaint upon Defendants on December 15,

19 2014. A true and correct copy of the Summons is attached to the Victor Decl. as

20 “Exhibit B.”

21

6. This Notice of Removal is timely filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)

22 since it is filed within 30 days of service of the Summons and Complaint on the

23 Defendants.

24

VENUE

25

7. 28 U.S.C. §1441(a) provides that, “any civil action brought in a State

26 court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may

27 be removed by the defendant or defendants, to the district court of the United States

28 for the district and division embracing the place where such action was pending.”

1271554.1 05764-048

2
NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 1 Filed 01/14/15 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:3

ANDERSON, MCPHARLIN & CONNERS LLP LAWYERS 707 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 4000 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-3623 TEL (213) 688-0080 • FAX (213) 622-7594

1

8. The Plaintiffs filed this action in the Superior Court for the County of

2 Los Angeles. According to 28 U.S.C. §84(c)(2), this Court embraces the Superior

3 Court for the County of Los Angeles and therefore is the proper Court for the

4 removal of this action.

5

9. All Defendants who have been served with the Summons and

6 Complaint have joined in this Notice of Removal.

7

8 DATED: January 14, 2015 ANDERSON, McPHARLIN & CONNERS LLP

9

10

/s/ Paula Tripp Victor /s/

11

By: Paula Tripp Victor

12

Peter B. Rustin

13

Attorneys for Defendants, Ryan Weisenberg and Pepperdine University

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1271554.1 05764-048

3
NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441

 </s> 1

2

3

O

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 HALEY VIDECKIS AND LAYANA WHITE,
12 Plaintiffs,
13 v.
14 PERPPERDINE UNIVERSITY, a
15 corporation doing business in California,
16 Defendant.
17 ___________________________
18

) Case No. CV 15-00298 DDP (JCx) ) ) ) ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND ) DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS ) ) ) [Dkt. No. 13] ) ) ) ) ) )

19

Presently before the Court is Defendant Pepperdine University

20 (“Pepperdine”)’s Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint

21 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No.

22 13.) Having considered the parties’ submissions and heard oral

23 argument, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Motion

24 and adopts the following order.

25 I. BACKGROUND

26

Plaintiffs in this case are Haley Videckis (“Videckis”) and

27 Layana White (“White”). Videckis is a former member of

28 Pepperdine’s women’s basketball team who transferred to Pepperdine

1 from Arizona State University in July 2013. (First Amended

2 Complaint (“FAC”), Dkt. No. 22, ¶¶ 1, 47.) White is also a former

3 member of Pepperdine’s women’s basketball team who transferred to

4 Pepperdine from Arizona State University in January 2014. (FAC ¶¶

5 2, 47.) Defendant Pepperdine is a university located in

6 California. (Id. ¶ 3.) Pepperdine receives funds from the federal

7 government and from the state of California. (Id.) Ryan

8 Weisenberg (“Coach Ryan”) is the head coach of the Pepperdine

9 women’s basketball team. (Id. ¶ 5.) Adi (whose full name was not

10 provided in the FAC) is an athletic academic coordinator of the

11 Pepperdine women’s basketball team. (Id. ¶ 11.)

12

Plaintiffs’ suit arises out of allegedly intrusive and

13 discriminatory actions that Pepperdine and its employees committed

14 against Plaintiffs on account of Plaintiffs’ dating relationship.

15 Plaintiffs allege that, in the spring of 2014, Coach Ryan and

16 others on the staff of the women’s basketball team came to the

17 conclusion that Plaintiffs were lesbians and were in a lesbian

18 relationship. (Id. ¶ 16.) Plaintiffs further allege that Coach

19 Ryan and the coaching staff were concerned about the possibility of

20 the relationship causing turmoil within the team. (Id.)

21 Plaintiffs allege that, due to their concerns, Coach Ryan and

22 members of the coaching staff harassed and discriminated against

23 Plaintiffs in an effort to force Plaintiffs to quit the team.

24 (Id.)

25

Plaintiffs allege that, beginning in February 2014, Adi would

26 hold individual meetings with each of the Plaintiffs in order to

27 determine Plaintiffs’ sexual orientation and their relationship

28 status. (Id. ¶¶ 19-22.) The questions consisted of asking, among

2

1 other things, how close Plaintiffs were, whether they took

2 vacations together, where they slept, whether they pushed their

3 beds together, whether they went on dates, and whether they would

4 live together. (Id.) The questioning lasted at least through June

5 2014. (Id. ¶ 25.) At the end of April, White reported to Coach

6 Ryan that Adi constantly was trying to retain information about

7 White’s personal life instead of focusing on White’s academics.

8 (Id. ¶ 23.) Coach Ryan assured White that he would soon have a

9 coach monitor the players’ meetings with Adi. (Id.)

10

On April 16, 2014, Coach Ryan held a team leadership meeting

11 where he spoke on the topic of lesbianism. (Id. ¶ 23.) In the

12 meeting, Coach Ryan stated that lesbianism was a big concern for

13 him and for women’s basketball, that it was a reason why teams

14 lose, and that it would not be tolerated on the team. (Id.)

15

In May 2014, White met with Coach Ryan to discuss filing an

16 appeal to the NCAA that would allow her to play basketball in her

17 first year as a transfer student. (Id. ¶ 24.) Coach Ryan assured

18 White that he would be starting the process right away. (Id.)

19 Afterwards, however, White received no updates on the progress of

20 the appeal. (Id.) Later, when White met with the athletic

21 director at Pepperdine, she alleges that the director had not been

22 informed of any appeal on her behalf. (Id. ¶ 25.)

23

On June 4, 2014, Videckis complained to the coaching staff

24 that an athletic trainer had been asking Videckis inappropriate

25 questions about dating women. (Id.) Videckis alleges that Coach

26 Ryan accused her of lying when she complained about the

27 inappropriate questions. (Id.)

28

3

1

Plaintiffs further allege that, in early July, Adi falsely

2 accused Plaintiffs of academic cheating. (Id. ¶ 26.) The charges

3 were later dropped. (Id.) Later in July, Coach Ryan reached out

4 to two of Plaintiffs’ teammates, recommended that the teammates not

5 live with Plaintiffs, and stated that Plaintiffs were bad

6 influences. (Id.)

7

On August 25, 2014, Coach Ryan and another member of the

8 coaching staff asked two of Plaintiffs’ teammates whether

9 Plaintiffs were dating. (Id. ¶ 27.) When Plaintiffs found out

10 that the coaches had been asking their teammates about Plaintiffs’

11 relationship status, White confronted Coach Ryan about the

12 questioning. (Id.) During this meeting, White was able to confirm

13 that the coaching staff had been asking teammates whether

14 Plaintiffs were dating. (Id.)

15

In early September 2014, Adi and the coaching staff accused

16 White of being absent from a required study hall and punished

17 White. (Id. ¶ 28.) After the meeting where Coach Ryan and Adi

18 issued White’s punishment, Adi walked up to White with a book white

19 needed and slammed the book on the desk in front of White. (Id.)

20 That night, White attempted to commit suicide. (Id.)

21

On September 9, 2014, Videckis informed Coach Ryan that she

22 would miss practice on September 12 because she was getting tested

23 for cervical cancer. (Id.) On September 16, 2014, Videckis met

24 with Dr. Green at the Pepperdine Health Center, who told her that

25 she was cleared for her condition. (Id.) After leaving her

26 appointment that day, Videckis received an email from an assistant

27 trainer on the team that stated Videckis would not be cleared for

28 participation unless Videckis provided the athletic medicine center

4

1 with documentation from a spine specialist. (Id.) On September

2 17, Videckis called the health center to request documentation.

3 (Id.) That same day, Videckis brought her “MRI, diagnosis, and

4 treatment of prescription” to the athletic training room. (Id.)

5 Afterwards, Videckis received emails from the athletic trainers

6 informing her that the documentation she provided was insufficient,

7 and that she needed to provide them with a diagnosis and treatment

8 plan. (Id.) Videckis spoke with Coach Ryan, telling him that she

9 had given the trainers all of the documentation the doctor’s office

10 had on file for her. (Id.) Videckis requested Coach Ryan’s

11 assistance in speaking with the trainers to clear her for her

12 tailbone injury, but Coach Ryan informed Videckis that he would not

13 help her. (Id.) Videckis replied to the emails, informing the

14 trainers that her diagnosis was in the documentation she had

15 provided, but received no response. (Id.)

16

On September 19, 2014, Videckis met with Dr. Potts, the

17 Pepperdine athletic director, and told him of her concerns

18 regarding unfair treatment by the women’s basketball staff. (Id.)

19 Videckis told Dr. Potts that she felt that the coaching staff was

20 trying to keep her and White from playing, and furthermore that

21 they were trying to get Plaintiffs kicked out of the school. (Id.)

22 Videckis alleges that Dr. Potts was very rude during the meeting

23 and also that he yelled at her for bringing the issue to his

24 attention. (Id.)

25

That same day, Videckis called Coach Ryan and told him that

26 she was very unhappy with the way she had been treated. (Id.)

27 Coach Ryan then told her that she would need to make a decision as

28 to whether she wanted to remain on the team by Sunday. (Id.)

5

1 Videckis told him that she would need until Monday. (Id.) On

2 Monday, Videckis called Coach Ryan and told him that she needed

3 more time. (Id.) In response, Coach Ryan told her that he needed

4 her decision by 5pm that day; otherwise, he would tell Dr. Potts

5 that Videckis had quit voluntarily. (Id.)

6

Videckis sent Dr. Potts an email on September 24, stating that

7 she had not made a decision to quit, and that she would like to

8 speak with Dr. Potts later that week when she was back in town.

9 (Id.) Dr. Potts replied, saying that due to Videckis’ concerns,

10 the school had begun an investigation, and that until then, as

11 requested, Videckis would be relieved from activities having to do

12 with the basketball team. (Id.)

13

On November 7, 2014, Videckis received a letter from the Title

14 IX coordinator. (Id.) The letter stated that there was

15 insufficient evidence to conclude that harassment or sexual

16 orientation discrimination had occurred, and further that according

17 to the team doctor, Dr. Green “has not received this documentation

18 to medically assess your fitness to play.” (Id.) On December 1,

19 2014, Videckis sent the university a doctor’s note stating that

20 “[i]t is acceptable for [Videckis] to return to basketball without

21 restriction.” (Id. ¶ 29.)

22

As of the filing of the FAC, neither Videckis nor White had

23 been cleared to play basketball. (Id.)

24

Plaintiffs’ FAC alleges three causes of action: (1) violation

25 of the right of privacy under the California constitution; (2)

26 violation of California Educational Code §§ 220, 66251, and 66270;

27 and (3) violation of Title IX. Pepperdine moves to dismiss on all

28 claims.

6

1 II. LEGAL STANDARD

2

A 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss requires the court to determine

3 the sufficiency of the plaintiff's complaint and whether or not it

4 contains a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

5 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Under

6 Rule 12(b)(6), a court must (1) construe the complaint in the light

7 most favorable to the plaintiff, and (2) accept all well-pleaded

8 factual allegations as true, as well as all reasonable inferences

9 to be drawn from them. See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266

10 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001), amended on denial of reh’g, 275 F.3d

11 1187 (9th Cir. 2001); Pareto v. F.D.I.C., 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th

12 Cir. 1998).

13

In order to survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the

14 complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as

15 true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”

16 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp.

17 v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). However, “[t]hreadbare

18 recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

19 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

20 Dismissal is proper if the complaint “lacks a cognizable legal

21 theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.”

22 Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th

23 Cir. 2008); see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 561-63 (dismissal for

24 failure to state a claim does not require the appearance, beyond a

25 doubt, that the plaintiff can prove “no set of facts” in support of

26 its claim that would entitle it to relief). A complaint does not

27 suffice “if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further

28 factual enhancement.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550

7

1 U.S. at 556). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff

2 pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable

3 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

4 Id. The Court need not accept as true “legal conclusions merely

5 because they are cast in the form of factual allegations.” Warren

6 v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003).

7 III. DISCUSSION

8

A. Plaintiffs’ Right of Privacy Claim

9

Pepperdine argues for dismissal of Plaintiffs’ right of

10 privacy claim because: (1) Plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation

11 of privacy as to either their medical records or their sexual

12 orientation; and (2) the alleged invasion of privacy was not

13 sufficiently severe. A plaintiff alleging a claim for invasion of

14 privacy under the California constitution must establish three

15 elements: (1) a legally protected privacy interest; (2) a

16 reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances; and (3)

17 conduct by defendant constituting a serious invasion of privacy.

18 Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Assn., 7 Cal. 4th 1, 39-40

19 (1994). Pepperdine argues that Plaintiffs have failed to establish

20 the second two elements in their FAC. Pepperdine does not argue

21 that Plaintiffs do not have a legally protected privacy interest

22 with respect to their medical records or sexual orientation.

23

1. Reasonable Expectation of Privacy as to Medical

24 Records

25

In Hill, the California Supreme Court held that the NCAA’s

26 drug testing policy for college athletes did not amount to a

27 constitutional invasion of privacy because the athletes did not

28 have a reasonable expectation of privacy given the circumstances.

8

1 Hill, 7 Cal. 4th at 41-42. Hill held that the athletes did have a

2 legally protected privacy interest, but that it was diminished

3 given that: (1) they were willing participants in NCAA sports, and

4 (2) they knew that drug testing would be part of the requirements

5 for playing at the NCAA level. Id.

6

Plaintiffs’ alleged circumstances are different than those of

7 the athletes in Hill. Although Plaintiffs, as they themselves

8 acknowledge, give up some expectation of privacy as to their

9 medical records due to their voluntary participation in college

10 basketball, the right to privacy in their records remains insofar

11 as those records are unrelated to their participation in athletics.

12 Plaintiffs allege that the medical records requests were not

13 related to the legitimate purpose of confirming Plaintiffs’

14 physical fitness to play; instead, they allege that the requests

15 were motivated by the desire to harass Plaintiffs in order to force

16 them to quit the basketball team. See Hill, 7 Cal. 4th at 44

17 (stating that the plaintiffs did not “attribute bad faith motives

18 to the NCAA” in employing its drug testing policy).

19

Although it is possible Plaintiffs had a reasonable

20 expectation to privacy with respect to their medical records,

21 Plaintiffs have alleged insufficient facts in their FAC to support

22 a reasonable expectation of privacy given the circumstances. The

23 FAC is confusing and seemingly contradictory in its description of

24 the circumstances surrounding the requests for Videckis’ medical

25 records. Although the FAC alleges that the coaching staff

26 “demanded that Plaintiffs provide unlimited access to Plaintiffs’

27 gynecology medical records,” the FAC only alleges specific facts

28 regarding the training staff’s demands for records of Videckis’

9

1 tailbone injury, not her gynecological records. (See FAC ¶¶ 28,

2 32.) Plaintiffs do state that Videckis had a doctor’s appointment

3 for a cervical cancer screening; however, the appointment with Dr.

4 Green about which the training staff inquired appears to be an

5 appointment regarding Videckis’ tailbone pain. (Id. ¶ 28.) A

6 tailbone injury would be relevant to Videckis’ ability to play

7 basketball, and Videckis would not have a reasonable expectation of

8 privacy with respect to her tailbone injury. On the other hand,

9 Videckis may have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect

10 to her gynecological records.

11

2. Reasonable Expectation of Privacy as to Sexual

12 Orientation

13

Pepperdine argues that Plaintiffs had no reasonable

14 expectation of privacy as to their sexual orientation. Pepperdine

15 cites to Barbee v. Household Automotive Finance Corp. in support of

16 its contention that team coaches and supervisors had a valid reason

17 for questioning Plaintiffs’ relationship - that of the concern for

18 a cohesive and supporting team dynamic. Barbee, 113 Cal. App. 4th

19 525. Barbee held that a sales manager had no reasonable

20 expectation of privacy as to the manager’s intimate relationship

21 with a subordinate. Id. at 532-33.

22

Barbee can be distinguished from the present case in multiple

23 ways. First, Barbee’s holding was limited to the question of

24 whether “customs, practices, and physical settings, weigh[ed]

25 heavily against finding a broadly based and widely accepted

26 community norm[] that supervisors have a privacy right to engage in

27 intimate relationships with their subordinates.” Id. at 533

28 (internal quotations omitted). The present case involves a

10

1 relationship between fellow players on a basketball team, not

2 between a supervisor and a subordinate, and further does not

3 implicate an obvious potential conflict of interest. Second, in

4 Barbee there was an express company policy that supervisors who

5 wished to pursue an intimate relationship with a subordinate bring

6 the matter to the attention of management. Id. Here, Pepperdine

7 cites to a statement made by Coach Ryan that relationships between

8 teammates are problematic for team cohesiveness; this does not

9 constitute anything near an express policy. Third, the privacy

10 right that was claimed in Barbee was one in “pursuing an intimate

11 relationship.” Id. at 531. Here, part of the privacy right

12 alleged by Plaintiffs is to the fact of their sexual orientation as

13 well as the right to be free from “questions relating to or to

14 determine Plaintiffs’ sexual orientation.” FAC ¶¶ 31-32. Other

15 California cases have held that there is a protectable right to be

16 free from intrusive questioning related to one’s sexual activities.

17 See, e.g., Roman Catholic Bishop v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. App.

18 4th 1556, 1567(1996) (“the employer who queries employees on sexual

19 behavior is subject to claims for invasion of privacy and sexual

20 harassment”); Botello v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist., No.

21 C09-02121 HRL, 2009 WL 3918930, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2009)

22 (holding that student had a reasonable expectation of privacy as to

23 school administrators’ questioning of the student’s sexual

24 orientation).

25

The Court finds that Plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation

26 of privacy as to their sexual orientation and their intimate

27 activities.

28 ///

11

1

3. Severity of the Invasion of Privacy

2

Pepperdine argues that the inquiries into Plaintiffs’

3 interpersonal relationships and the requests for medical records

4 fail to constitute a “serious invasion of privacy.” The California

5 Supreme Court has stated that “[a]ctionable invasions of privacy

6 must be sufficiently serious in their nature, scope, and actual or

7 potential impact to constitute an egregious breach of the social

8 norms underlying the privacy right.” Hill, 7 Cal. 4th at 37.

9

Plaintiffs allege that Coach Ryan and other supervisors and

10 counselors for the basketball team essentially engaged in a

11 campaign of asking Plaintiffs about the details of their sexual and

12 personal lives for no legitimate reason other than to harrass

13 Plaintiffs. These inquiries drove White to attempt suicide, and

14 drove both Plaintiffs to leave Pepperdine and give up their

15 basketball scholarships. The Court declines to find at the motion

16 to dismiss stage that these types of actions do not constitute a

17 serious invasion of privacy.

18

4. Conclusion

19

The Court will deny the motion to dismiss the invasion of

20 privacy claim as to Plaintiffs’ sexual orientation. However, since

21 the FAC only describes the circumstances surrounding the tailbone

22 injury records and not the gynecological records, Plaintiffs have

23 failed to state a claim for invasion of privacy insofar as the

24 medical records are concerned. However, Plaintiffs may be able to

25 plead a claim as to the medical records requests if they are

26 allowed an opportunity to amend the FAC. Accordingly, the Court

27 will grant the Motion without prejudice as to the portion of the

28 privacy claim concerning Plaintiffs’ medical records. See Martinez

12

1 v. Newport Beach, 125 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir. 1997) (leave to amend

2 should be granted unless amendment “would cause prejudice to the

3 opposing party, is sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates undue

4 delay”).

5

B. Plaintiffs’ Cause of Action under California Educational

6 Code §§ 220, 66251, and 66270

7

Pepperdine seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs’ California

8 Educational Code claim for failure to allege the necessary elements

9 as well as for being impermissibly vague. Firstly, the Court does

10 not find that the allegations are impermissibly vague. Plaintiffs

11 cite to the specific portions of the Educational Code under which

12 they are pursuing their action. Although Section 66251 is a

13 general statement of policy, Sections 220 and 66270 have parallel

14 language that prohibits “discrimination on the basis of disability,

15 gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or

16 ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation” by educational

17 institutions that receive or benefit from state financial

18 assistance. See Cal. Educ. Code §§ 220, 66270. Section 220

19 applies to “educational institution[s]” in general while Section

20 66270 applies to “postsecondary educational institution[s].” Cal.

21 Educ. Code § 220. This puts Pepperdine fairly on notice of the

22 nature of the claims that Plaintiffs are asserting against the

23 school.

24

As to Pepperdine’s argument that Plaintiffs fail to allege the

25 necessary elements of the cause of action under Section 220 and

26 Section 66270, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently

27 pled those claims. Plaintiffs’ claims for sexual orientation

28 harassment under the California Educational Code are governed by

13

1 the same elements as a federal cause of action under Title IX. See

2 Donovan v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 167 Cal. App. 4th 567, 603

3 (2008). To prevail, a plaintiff must prove the following elements:

4 “(1) he or she suffered severe, pervasive and offensive harassment,

5 that effectively deprived plaintiff of the right of equal access to

6 educational benefits and opportunities; (2) the school district had

7 actual knowledge of that harassment; and (3) the school district

8 acted with deliberate indifference in the face of such knowledge.”

9 Donovan, 167 Cal. App. 4th at 579 (internal quotations omitted).

10 The two primary elements that Pepperdine challenges are that

11 Plaintiffs have not shown “severe, pervasive and offensive”

12 harassment and that the school acted “with deliberate

13 indifference.” Plaintiffs have alleged that the questioning with

14 regards to their relationship was persistent and aggressive, and

15 that coaches and school officials failed to take concrete steps to

16 address the issues. Pepperdine’s arguments go to the ultimate

17 strength of Plaintiffs’ allegations rather than whether they

18 support any plausible claim for harassment and deliberate

19 indifference at all.

20

C. Plaintiffs’ Title IX Cause of Action

21

Pepperdine argues that Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause

22 of action under Title IX because Title IX only bans discrimination

23 based on gender, and not discrimination based on sexual

24 orientation. See 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) (“[n]o person in the United

25 States shall, on the basis of sex . . . be subjected to

26 discrimination under any education program or activity receiving

27 Federal financial assistance”); Hoffman v. Saginaw Public Schools,

28 No. 12-10354, 2012 WL 2450805, at *8 (E.D. Mich. June 27, 2012)

14

1 (“while discrimination based on noncompliance with sexual

2 stereotypes may be actionable under federal law, discrimination

3 based on sexual orientation is not”) (citing cases).

4

Plaintiffs acknowledge that their Title IX claim, as currently

5 pled, alleges a Title IX violation due to discrimination on the

6 basis of sexual orientation. (Opp., Dkt. No. 6, at 6.) Plaintiffs

7 request leave to amend their Title IX claim because they argue they

8 can state a claim of discrimination on the basis of “stereotyped

9 gender roles,” which would fall within the bounds of Title IX.

10 (Id.) In support of their position, Plaintiffs cite to a Northern

11 District of Illinois case that they argue supports their position.

12 See Howell v. N. Cent. Coll., 320 F. Supp. 2d 717, 722 (N.D. Ill.

13 2004). The court in Howell stated that “[h]arassment that relies

14 upon stereotypical notions about how men and women should appear

15 and behave, according to the court, reasonably suggests that it can

16 be attributed to sex.” Id. at 722 (internal quotations omitted).

17 Pepperdine points out that in Howell, the Title IX claim was

18 dismissed because the plaintiff, a player on a women’s college

19 basketball team, alleged she was discriminated against because of

20 her views against homosexuality - something that the court in that

21 case found alleged harassment based on sexual preference and not

22 gender stereotyping.

23

As an initial matter, the Court notes that all of the cases

24 referred to by the parties in support of the proposition that Title

25 IX does not cover sexual orientation discrimination are out-of-

26 circuit cases from the Seventh Circuit. Recent case law from the

27 Supreme Court and from the Ninth Circuit indicates that the bounds

28 of Title IX may not be so narrow. See, e.g., United States v.

15

1 Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2696 (2013) (striking down the federal 2 Defense of Marriage Act because “no legitimate purpose overcomes 3 the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the 4 State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and 5 dignity”); SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs., 740 F.3d 471, 6 483 (9th Cir. 2014) (interpreting Windsor to apply heightened 7 scrutiny to classifications based on sexual orientation 8 discrimination); Latta v. Otter, 771 F.3d 456, 479-495 (9th Cir. 9 2014) (reasoning that Idaho and Nevada’s same-sex marriage 10 proscriptions are unconstitutional not only because they 11 discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, but also because 12 they discriminate on the basis of sex since: (1) they facially 13 classify on the basis of gender, and (2) they are based in gender 14 stereotypes) (Berzon, J., concurring). The law is rapidly 15 developing and far from settled insofar as determining where sexual 16 orientation discrimination lies within the framework of gender17 based discrimination. Recent Ninth Circuit cases suggest that the 18 distinction between sexual orientation discrimination and sexual 19 discrimination is illusory. Furthermore, discrimination based on a 20 same-sex relationship could fall under the umbrella of sexual 21 discrimination even if such discrimination were not based 22 explicitly on gender stereotypes. For example, a policy that 23 female basketball players could only be in relationships with males 24 inherently would seem to discriminate on the basis of gender. In 25 this example, the gender discrimination would be that the female 26 players would be prevented from entering into relationships with 27 other females because their chosen partner was female. Even if a 28 similar same-sex ban were imposed on the men’s basketball team, the
16

1 unequal classification would still hold, as women seeking to be in

2 relationships with men would not be treated equally as men seeking

3 to be in relationships with me. For these reasons, the Court would

4 be disinclined to give weight to older out-of-circuit cases that

5 make a categorical distinction between gender-based discrimination

6 and sexual orientation discrimination.

7

Because Plaintiffs have not contested Pepperdine’s argument

8 that Title IX does not cover sexual orientation discrimination, and

9 because Plaintiffs contend that they can state a case based on

10 gender discrimination, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ Title IX

11 claim with leave to amend. However, the Court notes that the line

12 between discrimination based on gender stereotyping and

13 discrimination based on sexual orientation is blurry, at best, and

14 thus a claim that Plaintiffs were discriminated against on the

15 basis of their relationship and their sexual orientation may fall

16 within the bounds of Title IX.

17

The Court acknowledges Pepperdine’s protest that Plaintiffs

18 have already had multiple chances to amend their complaint due to

19 multiple meet-and-confer discussions. However, given that this is

20 only the second iteration of their complaint Plaintiffs’ have filed

21 with the Court, Plaintiffs should be granted another opportunity to

22 amend.

23

The Court further notes that Pepperdine has raised questions

24 as to whether Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled the elements for a

25 private right of action under Title IX. An implied private right

26 of action does exist under Title IX. However, in order to have

27 pled a cause of action under Title IX, a plaintiff must prove that

28 the federal funding recipients were “deliberately indifferent to

17

1 sexual harassment, of which they have actual knowledge, that is so

2 severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to

3 deprive the victims of access to the educational opportunities or

4 benefits provided by the school.” Davis Next Friend LaShonda D. v.

5 Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 650 (1999). Because

6 Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion to dismiss, because the Court

7 Plaintiffs leave to amend, it would ask that Plaintiffs ensure

8 their amended complaint fully addresses and satisfies the elements

9 required to bring a Title IX claim.

10 IV. CONCLUSION

11

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs’

12 invasion of privacy claim - insofar as it is based on the requests

13 for Plaintiffs’ medical records - with LEAVE TO AMEND. The Court

14 further DISMISSES the Title IX claim with LEAVE TO AMEND. Any

15 amended complaint should be filed within 20 days of the date of

16 this order. Pepperdine’s Motion is otherwise DENIED.

17

18

19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

21

22 Dated: April 16, 2015 23

DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge

24

25

26

27

28

18

 </s> Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 1 of 39 Page ID #:302

1 JEREMY J. GRAY (SBN 150075) jgray@zuberlaw.com
2 JEFFREY J. ZUBER (SBN 220830) jzuber@zuberlaw.com
3 ZUBER LAWLER & DEL DUCA LLP 777 S. Figueroa Street, 37th Floor
4 Los Angeles, California 90017 USA Telephone: (213) 596-5620
5 Facsimile: (213) 596-5621

6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Haley Videckis and Layana White
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

10

11 HALEY VIDECKIS and LAYANA WHITE, individuals,
12

Plaintiffs, 13

14

v.

PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY, a 15 corporation doing business in

California, 16

17

Defendant.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-00298-DDP (JCx) THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. VIOLATION OF RIGHT OF PRIVACY UNDER CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1, § 1; 2. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA EDUCATIONAL CODE §§ 220, 66251, 66270; 3. VIOLATION OF TITLE IX – Deliberate Indifference; 4. VIOLATION OF TITLE IX – Intentional Discrimination; 5. VIOLATION OF TITLE IX – Retaliation for Complaints About Discrimination 6. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §§51 et seq. – Unruh Act 7. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

27

28

2063-1002 / 414820.1

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 2 of 39 Page ID #:303

1

I.

2

PARTIES

3

1. Plaintiff HALEY VIDECKIS (“Haley”) is a resident of California and

4 a 20-year-old Caucasian woman, who played basketball at Pepperdine University.

5 She was a transfer student from Arizona State University. She was one of the

6 outstanding players at Arizona State University and earned a PAC 12 All-Freshman

7 honorable mention notice during the 2012-2013 season. In July 2013, she was

8 highly recruited by Pepperdine University (“Pepperdine” or the “University”) and its

9 coaches and transferred to the University to seek better education and further her

10 career to become a WNBA basketball player.

11

2. Plaintiff LAYANA WHITE (“Layana”) is a resident of California and a

12 21-year-old African American woman, who played basketball at Pepperdine. She

13 was a transfer student from University of Arizona where she played basketball as

14 one of its top players. She was highly recruited by the University and its coaches

15 and transferred to Pepperdine in January 2014. She believed that transferring to

16 Pepperdine University would provide her better education and further her career to

17 become a WNBA player.

18

3. Defendant PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY is a university located in

19 California and is a corporation. The University and its students receive funds from

20 the federal government and the State of California.

21

II.

22

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

23

4. This Court has original subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28

24 U.S.C. Section 1331 because three of Plaintiffs’ claims arise under Title IX of the

25 United States Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. Sections 1681-1688

26 (hereinafter “Title IX”). In addition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367, this Court

27 has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

28

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Pepperdine because it is

2063-1002 / 414820.1

1
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 3 of 39 Page ID #:304

1 authorized to do business and conducts business in the State of California in that it

2 maintains its principal campus in Malibu, California in Los Angeles County.

3

6. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1391(a)

4 & (b), because Defendant resides in this District and a substantial part of the events

5 or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this judicial district.

6

III.

7

NON PARTIES

8

7. RYAN WEISENBERG (“Coach Ryan”) is the head coach of the

9 women’s basketball team at Pepperdine and acted within the scope and course of his

10 employment at all times mentioned herein. Coach Ryan is a managing agent of the

11 University in regards to the decisions as to which of the students will be members of

12 the basketball team, under what conditions they may play and their code of conduct.

13 Coach Ryan directed, encouraged, approved, knew and failed to correct and stop the

14 alleged conduct of his assistant coaches, athletic trainers and academic coordinator

15 which are part of Plaintiffs’ cause of actions against Defendant Pepperdine.

16

8. JORDAN SMITH (“Coach Jordan”) is an assistant coach of the

17 women’s basketball team at Pepperdine, reports to Coach Ryan and acted within the

18 scope and course of her employment at all times mentioned herein.

19

9. MALLORIE WINN (“Coach Mallorie”) is an assistant coach of the

20 women’s basketball team at Pepperdine University, reports to Coach Ryan and acted

21 within the scope and course of her employment at all times mentioned herein.

22

10. TRISHA RANIEWICZ (“Coach Trisha”) is an assistant coach of the

23 women’s basketball team at Pepperdine University, reports to Coach Ryan and acted

24 within the scope and course of her employment at all times mentioned herein.

25

11. KEVIN WRIGHT (“Kevin”) is the head athletic trainer of the women’s

26 basketball team at Pepperdine University, reports to Coach Ryan and acted within

27 the scope and course of his employment at all times mentioned herein.

28

12. KARISSA SCHERER (“Karissa”) is an assistant athletic trainer of the

2063-1002 / 414820.1

2
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 4 of 39 Page ID #:305

1 women’s basketball team at Pepperdine University, reports to Coach Ryan and acted

2 within the scope and course of her employment at all times mentioned herein.

3

13. ADI CONLOGUE (“Adi”) is an athletic academic coordinator of the

4 women’s basketball team at Pepperdine University, works in junction with Coach

5 Ryan and acted within the scope and course of her employment at all times

6 mentioned herein.

7

14. DR. STEVE POTTS (“Dr. Potts”) is the Athletic Director at

8 Pepperdine University, a supervisor of Coach Ryan and acted within the scope and

9 course of his employment at all times mentioned herein. Dr. Potts is a managing

10 agent of the University in regards to all athletic teams including the women’s

11 basketball team, under what conditions they may play and their code of conduct.

12

15. TABATHA JONES JOLIVET (“Title IX coordinator”) is a Title IX

13 Deputy Coordinator at Pepperdine University and reports to President Benton and

14 acted within the scope and course of her employment at all times mentioned herein.

15 She is a managing agent of the University in regards to the University’s compliance

16 with Title IX.

17

16. ANDREW BENTON (“President Benton”) is the president and a

18 managing agent at Pepperdine University at all times mentioned herein.

19

IV.

20

SUMMARY OF THE CASE

21

17. In the spring of 2014, Coach Ryan came to the conclusion that two of

22 the players on his basketball team were lesbians and were having a lesbian

23 relationship. The two basketball players were Plaintiffs, Haley and Layana. Coach

24 Ryan asserted that their lesbian relationship would cause turmoil within the team

25 and a losing season. Consistent with these assertions, Coach Ryan deliberately

26 invaded Plaintiffs’ privacy, harassed Plaintiffs and discriminated against Plaintiffs

27 based on their sexual orientation, in an effort to get them to quit. In this way,

28 Plaintiffs’ scholarships would be available for recruiting replacement players. In

2063-1002 / 414820.1

3
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 5 of 39 Page ID #:306

1 order to accomplish his goal, he was aided by his assistant coaches, trainers and

2 academic coordinator.

3

18. By September 2014, Coach Ryan was so successful in his endeavor that

4 Layana attempted to commit suicide and Haley was medically disqualified by the

5 trainers despite a doctor’s diagnosis to the contrary. Plaintiffs complained to the

6 athletic director and to the Title IX coordinator as to the above. However, the

7 University officials were deliberately indifferent and refused to take actions to stop

8 the intrusion, harassment and discrimination. Instead, the Title IX coordinator

9 issued a cover up report. In December 2014, because of the university’s deliberate

10 indifference to the invasion of privacy, harassment and discrimination based on

11 sexual orientation, Plaintiffs resigned from the University.

12

19. The University’s treatment of Plaintiffs and their perceived and/or

13 actual sexual orientation and/or relationship was, in part, motivated and driven by

14 gender stereotypes held by the University, its staff and employees of Plaintiffs as

15 female athletes and specifically women basketball players. For example, the

16 University and its employees and staff made improper inquiries into the intimate,

17 sexual affairs of the Plaintiffs, as female athletes, which were not, and would not, be

18 made of (or to) their similarly situated male athlete counterparts. Moreover,

19 Pepperdine, and the Coaches of the Pepperdine women’s basketball team, made

20 statements and announced policies, practices and rules relating to sexual orientation

21 (and specifically “lesbianism”) during Plaintiffs’ tenure there, whereas no similar

22 comments or rules were made regarding sexual orientation for Plaintiffs’ male

23 counterparts. Furthermore, the refusal by the University and its employees and

24 staff, to accept or accede to Plaintiffs’ efforts to maintain the confidentiality of their

25 sexual orientation and/or relationship amounted to different treatment than would

26 have been afforded to similar requests by Plaintiffs’ male counterparts.

27

20. In addition, the University, its staff and employees announced, and

28 implemented, treatment for those, like Plaintiffs, who were in same gender

2063-1002 / 414820.1

4
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 6 of 39 Page ID #:307

1 relationships different than the treatment afforded athletes in opposite gender

2 relationships.

3

V.

4

FACTS

5

Inquiries by Adi

6

21. In the beginning of February 2014 Academic Coordinator Adi, who

7 was selected by the University to help female basketball players maintain good

8 grades, pulled Haley into her office to talk. In this meeting, Adi asked Haley if

9 there were any gay or bisexual players on the team. Haley said no. Although she

10 was aware of multiple girls on the team that were gay and bisexual, she could not

11 answer this question honestly because Pepperdine is extremely discriminatory

12 against the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) community.

13 Furthermore, Adi asked Haley if she was gay. Haley said no. The next week, Adi

14 asked Haley to come into her office. The following dialogue occurred.

15

Adi: “I noticed that you and Layana have become very close.”

16

Haley: “Yeah, Layana and I have become good friends.”

17

Adi: “How close?” “Like BFFs [Best Friends Forever] or more than

18

that?”

19

Haley: “We are just friends.”

20

22. In the study hall room, Adi asked Haley what she was doing for spring

21 break. Haley told her that she was going home to Chicago and that Layana was

22 going to visit Arizona. Adi said, “You aren’t going to take Layana home with you?”

23 Haley said no. Adi said, “Aren’t you going to miss her?” When Haley and Layana

24 returned from Vegas where they spent their break, Adi continued asking both Haley

25 and Layana about their trip. These questions include but are not limited to: What

26 did you do? Where did you sleep? Did you share a bed? Layana told Adi that she

27 did not go to Vegas with Haley. Adi then told Layana that she did not believe

28 Layana and that she knew that Layana was with Haley. Neither Haley nor Layana

2063-1002 / 414820.1

5
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 7 of 39 Page ID #:308

1 admitted to Adi that they went to Vegas together.

2

23. In March 2014, every time Haley would see Adi, she asked Haley

3 about Layana. Adi, “How are you and Layana?” She would ask this question in a

4 way suggesting Haley and Layana were in a relationship. Adi never asked Haley

5 how any of her other teammates were doing. Adi would ask Haley if she was going

6 places with Layana on the weekends and ask personal questions about what they did

7 together. On March 18, 2014, Adi asked Haley if Layana bought her anything for

8 her birthday. When Haley said no, Adi seemed surprised. She asked if Layana took

9 Haley anywhere for her birthday. Haley said no. Adi suggested a restaurant that

10 Layana and Haley go together on a date. Haley told Adi that she wouldn’t be going

11 with Layana anywhere on a date. Haley asked Adi very politely to stop asking her

12 about Layana.

13

24. March 18, 2014 was the first leadership meeting. After the 2013-2014

14 season, Coach Ryan had a new idea for the team. He chose 6 of his team’s best

15 “leaders” and began “Leadership Meetings” to discuss the team’s “Core

16 Covenants.” The Leadership Council was made up of the best leaders on the

17 basketball team: Krista, Bria, Ea, and Keitra as well as Plaintiffs. Every leadership

18 meeting occurred with only Coach Ryan in his office. No other coaches were there.

19 Coach Ryan would have them watch videos, write their ideas and opinions

20 discussing how to make the team more “successful”, and have group discussions.

21 He would also discuss his beliefs on what the negatives and positives to their

22 specific team were.

23

25. Towards the end of the 2014 spring semester, Adi began asking Haley

24 whom she would be living with in the summer. Adi always asked, “Are you going

25 to be living with Layana?” There are four people in each dorm and two people in

26 each room. Adi would ask “Is Layana going to be sleeping in the same room as

27 you?” “Do you guys push your beds together?” “Do you sleep together?”

28

26. During March and April 2014, Adi was also asking Layana very similar

2063-1002 / 414820.1

6
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 8 of 39 Page ID #:309

1 questions. Adi would ask Layana these questions during every weekly academic

2 meeting and every time she was in study hall. Layana told Adi that Haley was her

3 best friend and, “No, we are not dating.” Adi asked Layana if she “hung out and did

4 things with her other best friends the same way she does with Haley.” Layana told

5 her, “yes, because Haley is just my friend.” Also, every meeting Layana had with

6 Adi, she would always say, “So how are you and Haley doing?” Adi would ask this

7 question in the tone as if Layana and Haley are dating. Layana told Adi these

8 questions were inappropriate and to “please stop.”

9

Coach Ryan Denounces Lesbianism

10

27. On April 16, 2014 at 9 a.m., Coach Ryan had a leadership meeting in

11 which he offended many of the girls on the leadership council. Coach Ryan spoke

12 on the topic of “lesbianism.” Coach Ryan specifically said the word “lesbianism”

13 stating the following: “Lesbianism is not tolerated on this team. It is the reason why

14 teams lose.” “Lesbianism is a big concern in women’s basketball.”

15

Complaints About Adi and Continued Harassment

16

28. At the end of April 2014, Layana reported to Coach Ryan (no other

17 coaches present) that Adi was constantly attempting to ascertain personal

18 information from her regarding her private life. Coach Ryan assured Layana that

19 other teammates had also complained about Adi not focusing on academics and he

20 would soon be having a coach monitor the meetings with Adi. Layana told Coach

21 Ryan that these questions occurred not only in her academic meetings but when she

22 was in study hall as well. However, Coach Ryan ignored, and was deliberately

23 indifferent to the nature of Adi’s inquiries and Layana’s concerns about Adi’s

24 improper behavior in Study Hall, and elsewhere and neither Coach Ryan, nor

25 anyone else at Pepperdine took any action to stop Adi from her harassing and

26 invasive questions about Plaintiffs’ sexual orientation or relationship.

27

29. As a consequence of Pepperdine’s deliberate indifference to Adi’s

28 harassing and discriminatory behavior, both Plaintiffs were deprived of the services

2063-1002 / 414820.1

7
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 9 of 39 Page ID #:310

1 of an academic advisor as provided to similarly situated students at Pepperdine were

2 subjected to improper invasions of their privacy and deprived of educational

3 opportunities. Haley had to report to Adi before she left Pepperdine to turn in her

4 books from the spring semester. Adi and Haley were alone in the academic room,

5 and that is when the questioning began. Adi asked if Haley and Layana were going

6 on a trip before break. Haley admitted that they were going together to Vegas.

7

30. In May 2014, Adi continued to ask Layana about Haley. Layana told

8 Adi that her constant questions about Haley were irritating her, and she asked Adi

9 why she always questioned her about Haley’s friendship. Layana recalls Adi

10 responding in a sarcastic way saying, “Because you and Haley are BFFs.” Adi then

11 questioned Layana saying “Right? You guys are just BFFs, right? Or, are you closer

12 than that?” Layana still told Adi that “Haley and I are just friends” and to “please

13 stop asking these questions.”

14

31. The day after Adi’s birthday, Adi was telling Layana how she

15 celebrated the night. Adi told Layana she went to a nice restaurant and then said

16 sarcastically “You should take Haley there sometime for a date, that would be cute.”

17 Before Haley came back to school from May break, Adi would ask Layana in study

18 hall “Are you excited for Haley to come back?” “Are you picking her up from the

19 airport?” “Will you guys be staying in the same dorm room for the summer?”

20

Invasions of Privacy and Retaliation

21

32. At the end of May 2014, Keitra, one of the teammates, warned Layana

22 due to a meeting she just had with Coach Ryan. Keitra confided the content of the

23 meeting to Layana. Layana learned that Coach Ryan, himself, was engaging in

24 inappropriate inquiries regarding Plaintiffs’ sexual orientation and relationship.

25 Keitra reported that Coach Ryan asked her the following questions with no other

26 coaches present. “Are you dating Sahara?” “Are Haley and Layana dating?” Sahara

27 is a female student at Pepperdine, and by Coach Ryan asking if Keitra is dating

28 Sahara, he was implying she was lesbian. Keitra denied these questions and asked

2063-1002 / 414820.1

8
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 10 of 39 Page ID #:311

1 Coach Ryan where he heard these rumors. Coach Ryan said he heard it from a staff

2 member that the players were with everyday. Keitra told Layana to watch what she

3 says around the staff members. Keitra told Layana that she thought the “staff

4 member” was Adi or Karissa, the athletic trainer. When Haley returned to the

5 University, she confirmed with Keitra, that Coach Ryan asked her “Are Haley and

6 Layana dating?” Keitra told him no. Keitra also confided to Haley that Adi had

7 also asked Keitra if she was dating Sahara.

8

33. In May 2014, Layana called a meeting with Coach Ryan to discuss

9 beginning to file her appeal to NCAA. Transfer students are not allowed to play

10 basketball for an entire year absent the appeal. Coach Ryan told Layana that he

11 would be “starting the process right away” and he would also “be in contact with

12 Pepperdine’s athletic director, Dr. Potts, and the head of compliance, Brian Barrio,

13 to push the appeal through.” Layana received no response from Coach Ryan about

14 her appeal or progress towards filing the appeal. Layana, like all NCAA transfer

15 athletes, cannot submit such an appeal on their own. The athlete requires assistance

16 from the University’s athletic department which includes their coach, athletic

17 director, and head of compliance.

18

34. On June 4, 2014, Coach Ryan called individual meetings regarding the

19 training room and athletic trainer Karissa with the entire coaching staff were

20 present. In Haley’s meeting, Karissa falsely accused Haley of breaking many rules

21 in the training room dating all the way back into April. Haley said the accusations

22 were not true, but Coach Ryan cut Haley off and told her she was lying and that she

23 was wrong. Haley then told the coaches that Karissa was very unprofessional.

24 Coach Ryan asked her how, so Haley told them about how Karissa was asking

25 Haley if she ever dated girls and that Karissa told her that Coach Trisha was gay

26 which made Haley feel uncomfortable. Both Coach Ryan, and Coach Trisha,

27 responded with deliberate indifference to Haley’s complaints that Karissa had

28 harassed Haley about Haley’s sexuality and that Karissa was furthering that

2063-1002 / 414820.1

9
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 11 of 39 Page ID #:312

1 harassment by falsely accusing Haley of rules violations. In response to Haley’s

2 complaints, Coach Trisha was more concerned with her own standing at Pepperdine

3 and Coach Trisha laughed and said, “That is not true!” Coach Ryan responded by

4 yelling at Haley and accused her of lying.

5

35. In addition, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that, later that day,

6 when Coach Ryan (and/or others) confronted Karissa about Haley’s claim that

7 Karissa had been inquiring about Haley’s sexual orientation and disclosing

8 information about Coach Trisha, Karissa denied doing so. However, Karissa

9 changed her story the next day and admitted that she had lied to Coach Ryan and

10 confessed to having the inappropriate conversations with Haley about Haley’s and

11 Coach Trisha’s sexual orientation. Coach Ryan met with Karissa and Haley and

12 required that Karissa apologize to Haley for her the disclosures, and for lying about

13 it. Haley then requested that Karissa also admit that she had been lying about

14 Haley’s supposed misbehavior during rehab. Coach Ryan refused to treat Haley’s

15 concerns about Karissa’s harassment seriously and responded by insisting that all of

16 these issues be “brushed under the rug”. When Haley would not accede to this

17 request, Coach Ryan began yelling and swearing at her. Later, in the Title IX

18 investigation, it was confirmed that Karissa had been improperly changing the

19 records to make it appear as if Haley and Layana were arriving late for rehab (i.e.

20 breaking rules).

21

36. On June 12, 2014, Layana met with athletic director Dr. Potts. In the

22 meeting with Dr. Potts, Layana said, “I had a meeting with Coach Ryan in May

23 about filing my appeal to play right away. But I have not seen any progress. I

24 wanted to know what is going on with the process.” Dr. Potts responded to Layana

25 saying, “I had no idea about your appeal.” Layana was very confused and she said,

26 “I don’t understand why Coach Ryan doesn’t want to do my appeal. I feel like he

27 doesn’t want me to play right away. I don’t understand why and I don’t know who

28 can help me if Coach Ryan doesn’t want to file my appeal.” Then Dr. Potts said,

2063-1002 / 414820.1

10
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 12 of 39 Page ID #:313

1 “I’ll take care of it. Just send me your NCAA appeal letter.” Although Layana sent

2 information regarding her appeal to Dr. Potts through email after the meeting,

3 Layana did not receive any follow up of her appeal to this day. The University

4 announced news this summer that its men’s basketball player A.J. Lapray had

5 received NCAA approval from his appeal to play immediately after transferring

6 from Oregon. Furthermore, Layana arrived to Pepperdine six months before A.J.

7 arrived to Pepperdine, yet his appeal was filed and approved first.

8

37. Later in the month of June 2014, Coach Ryan made another comment

9 referring to intra-team dating. Coach Ryan made the following statement. “When I

10 was coaching for the LA Sparks, two of our players were dating and they broke up

11 in season. That was the reason our team fell apart and lost.” Coach Ryan’s

12 comments about lesbians were becoming obsessive and very strange. Both Layana

13 and Haley’s coaches at their previous PAC 12 School would never have

14 conversations about intra-team dating and never did they use the word lesbianism.

15 Women’s basketball is stereotyped for having many lesbians, and it is more

16 expected than prevented. When Haley and Layana heard Coach Ryan’s statement

17 that he was against the lesbian lifestyle within his team, it made them think Coach

18 Ryan would pull their scholarships if he confirmed their relationship. At this point,

19 Layana began to suffer from severe depression.

20

38. During June 2014, the following events took place. Adi asked Layana,

21 “So do you guys push your beds together in the dorm room? Do you guys sleep

22 together?” Whenever Layana saw Adi on Fridays in study hall, she would ask her,

23 “Are you taking your girl home with you this weekend?” referring to Haley. One

24 Friday, she asked Layana what she was going to do over the weekend and she told

25 Adi she was going to Disneyland. Adi then asked Layana, “Oh are you taking

26 Haley to Disneyland?” Layana said, “No, I’m taking my sister with me.” Layana

27 asked Adi why she wanted to know if she was going to take Haley. Adi replied

28 sarcastically, “Because you guys are BFFs.” These comments occurred when

2063-1002 / 414820.1

11
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 13 of 39 Page ID #:314

1 Layana was in study hall supervised by Adi.

2

39. When Layana achieved 3.0 GPA, the team rule required her to study in

3 study hall for 2 hours instead of 8 hours per week during the semester and 5 hours

4 per week during the summer. Because of Adi’s questions into Layana’s sexual

5 orientation, she was looking forward to the reduction of study hall hours. However,

6 Coach Ryan changed the GPA requirement from 3.0 to 3.2 immediately after

7 Layana achieved a GPA of 3.0. When Coach Ryan changed the GPA requirement

8 he knew Adi’s continued questioning during study hall was upsetting to Layana.

9 This increased requirement only applied to Layana since the other teammates had

10 GPAs that were either below 3.0 or above 3.2.

11

40. When Layana and Haley were the only two practicing, Bria, one of

12 Plaintiffs’ teammates, came up to Haley and Layana and asked if they had a minute

13 to talk. Bria said, “Hey guys. I just want to let you know, be careful what you tell

14 Adi because she tells Coach Ryan everything.” Bria would not say why she made

15 this statement to only Haley and Layana, but she warned them to be very careful, as

16 if Adi had told Coach Ryan something bad about Haley and Layana. After Bria left,

17 Layana and Haley believed that Adi told Coach Ryan that they were dating. They

18 did not say anything to Bria because they were keeping their relationship very

19 secret. Haley and Layana agreed to make a more conscious effort to keep their

20 relationship confidential. Haley and Layana were very afraid that if Coach Ryan

21 found out they were dating, he would take away their scholarships, especially after

22 the leadership meeting when he stated, “lesbianism is not tolerated here.”

23

False Allegations of Cheating and Additional Improper Inquires

24

41. In early July 2014, Adi falsely accused Plaintiffs of academic cheating.

25 The academic coordinator knowingly made the false charges in an effort to make

26 Plaintiffs quit the basketball team or be disqualified them from the team. However,

27 there was no evidence of cheating and the charges were dropped. On July 28, 2014

28 Coach Ryan sent a text message to Krista, Plaintiffs’ teammate, that he was

2063-1002 / 414820.1

12
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 14 of 39 Page ID #:315

1 disappointed that she wanted to live off-campus with Haley and Layana. Robie,

2 another teammate, also told Haley and Layana that she was told by Coach Ryan not

3 to live with Haley and Layana off-campus because they were bad influences. Robie

4 warned Haley and Layana that Coach Ryan is defaming them and trying to turn their

5 teammates against them. Robie said she was confused as to why he was doing this.

6 Robie did not know that Haley and Layana were dating.

7

42. On August 25, 2014, Pepperdine commenced the fall semester and it

8 was the first day of school. Haley and her teammate Allie were practicing in the

9 gym. Allie told Haley that Coach Jordan had asked her if Layana and Haley were

10 dating. Later that same night, Haley asked Bria if Coach Ryan had asked her

11 whether Layana and Haley were dating. Bria confirmed that it was true.

12

43. On August 26, 2014, Layana had a meeting with Coach Ryan and

13 Coach Mallorie. In this meeting, she asked Coach Ryan if he had been asking

14 several teammates if Haley and her were dating. He denied these allegations.

15 Layana told Coach Ryan two players on the team said that he had asked them if she

16 and Haley were dating. Layana also told him that Coach Jordan asked Allie if they

17 were dating. Coach Ryan said, “I know for a fact that that is not true. My staff

18 doesn’t gossip. And gossip is what gets people fired.” Coach Ryan continued to

19 deny that he asked any girls, and he claimed that the players were making up these

20 rumors to start drama. Coach Ryan suggested that Layana call a team meeting and

21 address this rumor. Layana said she did not think that was necessary when she

22 could end the rumor in his office right then and there. Then Coach Ryan called

23 Allie into this meeting to confirm her statement. Allie confirmed that Coach Jordan

24 asked her. Coach Ryan then called Coach Jordan on speakerphone. Coach Jordan

25 admitted that she asked Allie if Layana and Haley were dating. Coach Ryan asked

26 Allie to leave and then kept asking Layana who were the other two girls who said he

27 asked about Haley and Layana dating. Layana did not release any names. Layana

28 told Coach Ryan that she promised her teammates she would not get them involved,

2063-1002 / 414820.1

13
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 15 of 39 Page ID #:316

1 and all she wanted to do was end the rumor. Coach Mallorie asked Layana why this

2 situation bothers her so much. Layana answered, “Because I don’t want that

3 reputation at this Christian school.” Then, Coach Mallorie asked, “So what is really

4 going on between you and Haley? Are you dating?” Layana told Coach Mallorie

5 that they were not dating. Thus, Plaintiffs learned, from multiple sources, that

6 Coach Ryan, Coach Jordan, and others were making inappropriate and harassing

7 inquiries about Plaintiffs’ relationship and sexuality and Plaintiffs reported and

8 complained about this to Coach Ryan. His response was not only deliberate

9 indifference, Coach Ryan flat out lied and denied that he, or anyone else had asked

10 such questions about the Plaintiffs. Then, when Coach Jordan admitted to the

11 misbehavior, the coaches continued with their questioning and refused to accept or

12 acknowledge the inappropriate, illegal and harmful effects of such questions,

13 especially at Pepperdine which is unwelcoming to LGBT students.

14

44. On September 3, 2014, Layana went to the academic room with her

15 teammates, Keitra, Kelsey and Whitney, to do their study hall but there were no

16 more seats left. The players all signed in together and did their homework in the

17 locker room. Adi went into the study hall room and saw that they all signed in but

18 were not in the study hall room. Adi called Coach Ryan and told him that

19 specifically Layana checked in for study hall but was not in the study hall room.

20

45. On September 5, 2014, Coach Ryan called a meeting with Coach

21 Mallorie, Adi, and Layana. In the meeting, Coach Ryan justified Adi’s accusations

22 that Layana was not in the study hall room on September 3, 2014. Coach Ryan said

23 he discussed it with Adi, and Layana would be receiving a punishment. Out of all of

24 the players that were studying in the locker room, Layana was the only one to get

25 punished by Coach Ryan and Adi for not being in the academic room for study hall.

26 The other girls were not punished because Adi claimed that they all left her a note

27 on her desk before going to the locker room. Layana was with the girls the entire

28

2063-1002 / 414820.1

14
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 16 of 39 Page ID #:317

1 time and she knew for fact that they all did not leave any notes. The punishment

2 was extra study hall hours the following week.

3

46. After the meeting, Layana was sitting outside the coaches’ office with

4 Haley finishing her homework. Adi walked up to Layana’s desk with a book she

5 needed for class. Instead of handing it to Layana, Adi slammed the book on the

6 desk in front of her face. Layana packed up her backpack and told Haley that she

7 needed to leave. That night Layana attempted to commit suicide.

8

Invasions of Medical Privacy and Retaliation

9

47. In September 2014, Pepperdine, through a variety of its employees and

10 agents, including Karissa, Coach Ryan, and others, began retaliating against Haley

11 because of her complaints and invading her privacy. Specifically, Pepperdine

12 retaliated by refusing to clear Haley to participate in basketball activities based on

13 an injury to her tailbone, of which Pepperdine had been aware since June 2014, and

14 which, in no way limited or affected her ability to play basketball. Moreover,

15 Pepperdine unlawfully invaded Haley’s privacy by demanding all of her

16 gynecological records, after she simply informed Karissa and Coach Ryan that she

17 was undergoing a routine screen for cervical cancer (which was negative).

18

48. In June 2014, Haley reported to Karissa that she was experiencing pain

19 in her tailbone when she sat for long periods of time. Haley reported that she

20 believed the injury was associated with basketball training, specifically

21 weightlifting. Haley had not experienced any falls or other mishaps in everyday life

22 that would have caused an injury to her tailbone. Haley also advised Karissa that

23 the injury did not, in any way, limit or affect her ability to run or play basketball.

24 Haley asked if an X-ray could be taken to check on the injury. Karissa inexplicably

25 told Haley that the injury did not appear basketball-related, and that Haley would

26 need to pay for any X-ray herself, which, at that time, Haley could not afford.

27 Karissa did, however, arrange for Haley to be seen by the Team orthopedist in the

28 training room. The Orthopedist checked Haley out, diagnosed a tailbone bruise, and

2063-1002 / 414820.1

15
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 17 of 39 Page ID #:318

1 provided a treatment plan of sitting on a pad, and taking Advil for the pain. Neither

2 Karissa, nor the Orthopedist imposed any restrictions on Haley’s basketball

3 activities at the time, nor refused to clear her to participate. Over the summer, while

4 vacationing in Mexico with her father, Haley experienced pain while sitting.

5 Haley’s father paid for her to see a doctor (Dr. Babak Barchohana) in California on

6 August 2014 about her tailbone. Haley visited Dr. Barchohana once and underwent

7 an MRI. Dr. Barchohana confirmed she had a tailbone bruise and prescribed a

8 stronger painkiller than Advil, Norco, for when Haley would sit for long periods in

9 class. Dr. Barchohana did not restrict Haley’s ability to practice or play basketball,

10 in any way.

11

49. In early 2014, Haley’s annual gynecological check-up included an

12 abnormal pap smear. Haley’s doctor, Nancy Taylor, merely recommended that she

13 be rechecked in 6 months (instead of waiting a year).

14

50. When Haley returned to school in September 2014, she advised Karissa

15 about her visit to Dr. Barchohana and a scheduled recheck of her abnormal pap

16 smear.

17

51. When Haley returned to school in September 2014, she advised Karissa

18 that she had visited Dr. Barchohana and that he had prescribed Norco (Haley and the

19 other team members are required to disclose medications they are taking.)

20

52. In September 2014, Dr. Taylor’s office reminded Haley of the need for

21 a follow-up test and an appointment was scheduled for September 12, 2014. At

22 about this time, Haley was suffering from the flu and was not participating in

23 practice.

24

53. On September 9, 2014 Haley advised both Karissa and Coach Ryan

25 that she would miss practice on Friday September 12, 2014 because she had a

26 doctor’s appointment to recheck the abnormal pap test.

27

54. The next day, September 11, 2014, Karissa dispatched a text and

28 requested that Layana provide Karissa with all of Layana’s gynecological records.

2063-1002 / 414820.1

16
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 18 of 39 Page ID #:319

1 At about the same time Karissa sought Layana’s medical records, Karissa contacted

2 Dr. Taylor seeking all of Haley’s gynecological records. Both Layana and Haley

3 refused to provide Pepperdine with access to their gynecological records because

4 these records had nothing to do with their fitness to participate in basketball

5 activities. No similar requests for such records were made to women or men

6 participating in basketball at Pepperdine.

7

55. Haley saw Dr. Taylor on September 12, 2014. Dr. Taylor provided

8 Haley with the following, handwritten, note: “To whom it may concern: I saw

9 Haley today for follow up of abnormal Pap smear. This problem will have no

10 impact on her ability to play basketball.” Haley provided this note to Karissa.

11 However, Karissa inexplicably told Haley that the note was insufficient, and that

12 Haley would need to be cleared by Dr. Green in the Pepperdine Health Center.

13

56. On September 16, 2014, Haley met with Dr. Green. Haley provided

14 Dr. Green with the September 12, 2014 note from Dr. Taylor. Dr. Green advised

15 Haley that she was cleared for the issue for which she was under the care of Dr.

16 Taylor. In an effort to provide Pepperdine with the records they sought, Haley also

17 provided Dr. Green with a note from the doctor treating her for the flu. That

18 handwritten note, from Dr. Afshine Emrani, and dated September 11, 2014 stated:

19 “To whom it may concern – Patient is under my care and has urine infection/flu

20 virus and is on antibiotics & should be able to go back to training Monday.” Before

21 Haley left the appointment, Dr. Green told her that he would need to run a

22 mandatory urine test to check if she had a urine infection. (Later, Haley requested

23 Dr. Green’s notes from the visit to see exactly what she was tested for, but the

24 Pepperdine Health Center did not provide her with any of Dr. Green’s notes from

25 her visit.)

26

57. Within hours after seeing Dr. Green at the Health Center on September

27 16, 2914, Haley received an email from Karissa stating, “You will not be cleared for

28 participation until the documentation from the spine specialist has been brought to

2063-1002 / 414820.1

17
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 19 of 39 Page ID #:320

1 the athletic medicine center.” As Haley had already left campus, she provided the

2 documents the next day. This email referred to the tailbone injury which Haley had

3 reported in June 2014, and for which the Pepperdine Orthopedist examined and for

4 which she had never been restricted from participating in basketball activities.

5

58. On September 17, 2014, Haley called the health center and asked to

6 speak with Dr. Green to find out why she was not cleared for the tailbone issue.

7 Ultimately, Dr. Green advised Haley that he had been unaware of the tailbone issue,

8 and that she needed to provide documentation to Karissa. He responded via email to

9 the front desk that he did clear Haley because he was unaware of her spine condition

10 and Haley could not be cleared until she brought documentation to Karissa. Haley

11 provided Karissa with all of the documentation from her visit to Dr. Barchohana on

12 September 17, 2014 (the documentation included the MRI report and the

13 prescription for Norco).

14

59. Karissa’s sent Haley an email at 1:38 pm on September 17, 2014: “The

15 documents that you have provided regarding your doctor’s visit at the Southern

16 California Orthopedic Institute do provide us with enough information. What we

17 need is a diagnosis, treatment plan, and any treatment recommends that the

18 physician has prescribed.”

19

60. Then, Karissa’s boss Kevin, the Head Trainer, emailed Haley at 2:34

20 pm on September 17, 2014: “In order for medical clearance to be considered at

21 Pepperdine you have been asked to provide the athletic training center details of a

22 recent physician visit regarding your sacrum. Today you provided an MRI report to

23 the athletic training center ... Please get us the following information regarding your

24 sacrum: All the physician notes on diagnosis and plan for treatment.”

25

61. Haley called Coach Ryan and explained that Dr. Barchohana had

26 already released all of the documentation his office had on file for her. She asked

27 Coach Ryan if he can come with her to the training room to speak with Kevin and

28 Karissa about her seeing the basketball team orthopedic if it is necessary, to be

2063-1002 / 414820.1

18
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 20 of 39 Page ID #:321

1 cleared for her tailbone injury. Coach Ryan told her that he would not help her.

2 Then, Haley sent an email to Kevin and addressed Kevin’s request to a diagnosis

3 and treatment. “Regarding your concerns for the diagnosis not being in the

4 documentation, please note page 3 of my paperwork. Located above the

5 prescription note is “DX” (diagnosis): “Coccygeal” (tailbone) pain.” Neither Kevin

6 nor Karissa responded to Haley’s email that the diagnosis was on page 3.

7

62. During this time when Pepperdine was seeking to invade, and invading,

8 Haley and Layana’s gynecological records and issues, and improperly refusing to

9 clear Haley to participate in basketball activities, Karissa wrongly told Haley that “It

10 is obvious you are hiding and lying about something.”

11

63. On September 18, 2014, Haley, after unsuccessful efforts to have her

12 concerns addressed, met with Karina who is an assistant for the athletic director Dr.

13 Potts. She told Karina that she felt Coach Ryan did not want her on the team

14 anymore. She explained that Coach Ryan had told her there was nothing he could

15 do about it and that neither Dr. Potts nor President Benton could help her. Karina

16 told Haley that Dr. Potts was not there, but he could meet with her at 9 a.m. the next

17 morning.

18

64. On September 19, 2014, Haley met with Dr. Potts and Karina in his

19 office. Dr. Potts was extremely rude in this meeting and he would not let her

20 explain her side of the story. Within minutes, Haley was in tears by the way he was

21 yelling at her for bringing this issue to his attention. Not only did Haley complain to

22 Dr. Potts about not being cleared, Haley told him that Layana was also not cleared

23 and had not been cleared to practice since May. Haley told Dr. Potts that it felt like

24 the staff was trying to keep both Haley and Layana off the court and get them kicked

25 out of the school. After class that day, Haley called Coach Ryan. On the phone,

26 Haley said she needed to take the weekend to decide if she could be a part of the

27 team. She said, “I am very unhappy with the way I have been treated here.” Coach

28 Ryan did not ask her why, but he said he wanted a decision by Sunday morning at 8

2063-1002 / 414820.1

19
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 21 of 39 Page ID #:322

1 a.m. because he did not want to “drag it on.” Haley told him that she needed until

2 Monday to make a good decision.

3

65. On Monday, September 22, 2014, Haley called Coach Ryan and told

4 him “I am not ready to make a decision today and I want to talk to you when you

5 return from Florida on Thursday to give me enough time to think.” Coach Ryan

6 became very angry and said, “No, I do not want to drag this on. You will give me a

7 decision by 5 p.m.” Haley told Coach Ryan, “You can say whatever you want but I

8 will not sign papers that I voluntarily quit. If you want to kick me off the team just

9 because I need more time to make a decision, that’s your choice.” Coach Ryan

10 refused and told Haley to give him a decision by 5 p.m. He said he would send an

11 email to Dr. Potts saying that Haley would voluntarily quit if she did not give Coach

12 Ryan a decision by that time. And, in fact, Coach Ryan dispatched an email at 9:11

13 p.m. on September 23, 2014, in which he stated that Haley’s failure to make a

14 decision by his artificial deadline of 5:00 p.m. on Monday September 22, 2014

15 meant that Haley had quit the team and that Coach Ryan, and Pepperdine, was now

16 treating Haley as an ex-member of the team.

17

66. On September 24, 2014, Haley sent Dr. Potts the following email. “I

18 would like to inform you of my last communication with Coach Ryan over text.”

19 On Monday, September 22, Haley advised Coach Ryan in writing, “I have not made

20 a decision to quit. I would like to discuss the situation when you come back from

21 Florida. I have not voluntarily quit nor did I ever agree to Coach Ryan’s deadline.”

22

67. Dr. Potts replied to Haley on the same day, “I understand that you have

23 expressed concerns regarding your participation as a student-athlete here and that an

24 investigation into those concerns has begun. Until then, as you requested, you are

25 relieved from all activities related to our women’s basketball team.”

26

68. On November 7, 2014, Haley received the following letter from the

27 Title IX investigator Tabatha. “I have conducted a thorough investigation of your

28 claims and have attached a letter, which represents the conclusion to the

2063-1002 / 414820.1

20
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 22 of 39 Page ID #:323

1 investigation. After thoroughly investigating the allegations, I have found that there

2 is insufficient evidence to conclude that harassment or sexual orientation

3 discrimination occurred. According to the team doctor, Dr. Gary Green has not

4 received this documentation to medically assess your fitness to play.” The so-called

5 “investigation” by the Title IX Investigator responded to the complaints by Plaintiffs

6 in the same manner by which Pepperdine had responded to all prior complaints, by

7 trying to “sweep under the rug” the fact that Plaintiffs had been subjected to

8 harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, on account of their sexual orientation

9 and same gender relationship. The investigation was neither fair, thorough, nor

10 proper.

11

69. On December 1, 2014, Haley sent to the University the following note

12 from her doctor. “Based on her previous MRI findings, the patient’s diagnosis and

13 treatment plan remain unchanged. It is acceptable for the patient to return to

14 basketball without restriction. No more notes/treatment are necessary at this time.”

15 Notwithstanding neither Haley nor Layana have been cleared to play basketball.

16 CLAIM I – VIOLATION OF RIGHT OF PRIVACY UNDER CALIFORNIA

17

CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1, § 1

18

70. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 69 as

19 if set forth in full herein.

20

71. California’s Constitution provides that all citizens have an inalienable

21 right to pursue and obtain a right to privacy. Cal. Const. Art. I, § 1.

22

72. Plaintiffs had reasonable expectations of privacy as to (a) their sexual

23 orientation, (b) their personal relationship, and (c) their medical records and,

24 specifically, their gynecological records, that were unrelated to their ability to play

25 basketball for the Pepperdine varsity women’s basketball team.

26

73. These reasonable expectations of privacy entitled them to freedom from

27 intrusion into these private matters by Pepperdine, Coach Ryan, the assistant

28

2063-1002 / 414820.1

21
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 23 of 39 Page ID #:324

1 basketball coaches, the athletic trainers, the academic coordinators, and all other

2 members of Pepperdine’s faculty, administrators, and staff.

3

74. This right of privacy also protected Plaintiffs from the disclosure to

4 their parents and other persons from whom they had decided to keep their sexual

5 orientation private from having this information disclosed to them by Pepperdine, or

6 from having Pepperdine place Plaintiffs in the position of having to disclose the

7 information to such persons against Plaintiffs’ will.

8

75. Pepperdine, through its agents, Coach Ryan, the assistant basketball

9 coaches, the athletic trainers, the academic coordinators, and others, intentionally

10 intruded on Plaintiffs’ right to privacy by (a) continually asking questions regarding,

11 and seeking to determine, Plaintiffs’ sexual orientation and personal relationship, (b)

12 questioning other students and engaging in other efforts to determine Plaintiffs’

13 sexual orientation and personal relationship, and (c) demanding access to Plaintiffs’

14 gynecological records although Pepperdine had no basis to believe, and there was no

15 rational basis to believe, that those records would provide any information regarding

16 Plaintiffs’ ability or qualifications to play on the varsity women’s varsity basketball

17 team.

18

76. By forcing Plaintiffs off the women’s basketball team and revoking

19 their athletic scholarships, Pepperdine placed Plaintiffs in the position of having to

20 disclose to their parents and others from whom they had chosen to keep the

21 information confidential their sexual orientation, because their sexual orientation,

22 and Pepperdine’s discrimination and harassment as a result of their sexual

23 orientation, are what resulted in the removal from the team, the elimination of their

24 scholarships, and their resulting withdrawal from the school.

25

77. Plaintiffs suffered damages including financial damages and extreme

26 emotional distress as a result of Pepperdine’s invasions of the right to privacy.

27

78. Plaintiff White attempted suicide, was compelled to give up her

28 basketball scholarship, and leave Pepperdine because she did not have the financial

2063-1002 / 414820.1

22
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 24 of 39 Page ID #:325

1 resources to continue to attend the university without her scholarship, which has

2 interrupted her education and undoubtedly ended her chance to pursue a career with

3 the WNBA.

4

79. Plaintiff Videckis was compelled to give up her basketball scholarship,

5 and leave Pepperdine because she did not have the financial resources to continue to

6 attend the university without her scholarship, which has interrupted her education

7 and undoubtedly ended her chance to pursue a career with the WNBA.

8

80. Pepperdine and its agents’ ongoing and multiple intrusions into

9 Plaintiffs’ right to privacy were substantial factors in the above decisions.

10

81. Coach Ryan, an agent of Pepperdine, directly engaged in these

11 invasions into Plaintiffs’ rights to privacy and/or was aware of the conduct of his

12 assistant coaches, trainers, and academic coordinator who were under his control

13 and direction. Coach Ryan had actual knowledge of the conduct of those under his

14 control and direction, and either directed it, encouraged it, or was deliberately

15 indifferent to it, and refused to stop it or prevent it.

16

82. Dr. Potts, Pepperdine’s Athletic Director, had actual knowledge of the

17 invasions into Plaintiffs’ rights to privacy by Coach Ryan, assistant coaches,

18 trainers, and academic coordinator who were under his control and direction, but

19 was deliberately indifferent to it and refused to stop or prevent it.

20

83. Similarly, Tabatha, Pepperdine’s Title IX Coordinator, had actual

21 knowledge of the invasions into Plaintiffs’ rights to privacy by Coach Ryan,

22 assistant coaches, trainers, and academic coordinator who were under his control

23 and direction, but was deliberately indifferent to it and refused to stop or prevent it.

24 To the contrary, she issued a cover-up report after a sham investigation in which she

25 declined to review or consider evidence proffered by Plaintiffs and declined to

26 conduct interviews that would have confirmed Plaintiffs’ reports.

27

84. Pepperdine ratified the conduct through its agents, Coach Ryan, Dr.

28 Potts, and Tabatha, all of whom had actual and apparent authority to remedy

2063-1002 / 414820.1

23
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 25 of 39 Page ID #:326

1 Plaintiffs’ complaints. Coach Ryan and Dr. Potts are managing agents of

2 Pepperdine.

3

85. Plaintiffs have suffered actual damages, including compensatory and

4 emotional damages, as a result of Pepperdine’s intrusions into their rights to privacy.

5

86. Pepperdine’s intrusions into Plaintiffs’ rights to privacy were malicious

6 and oppressive, and its agents acted with reckless and callous disregard of or

7 indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights such that Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive and

8 exemplary damages for the Pepperdine’s conduct.

9

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court

10 enter judgment against Pepperdine by awarding compensatory damages, punitive

11 damages, and such other and further relief as this Court deems reasonable and just.

12 CLAIM II – VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA EDUCATIONAL CODE §220.

13

66251. 66270

14

Disparate Treatment - Discrimination

15

87. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained

16 in paragraphs 1 through 86 as though set forth fully herein.

17

88. Coach Ryan intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs because he

18 believed that they were lesbians having a relationship.

19

89. Plaintiffs received disparate treatment as they were treated differently

20 than the other students in the University including but not limited to the following.

21 Other students were not subject to pervasive questioning about their sexual

22 orientation. Other players were not required to submit their gynecology medical

23 records. Other players, unlike Haley and Layana, were not punished unfairly for

24 minor violations and/or given lesser punishments. Other injured players, unlike

25 Layana, were allowed to attend basketball practice. Appeals to the NCAA so that

26 the basketball players could play immediately were routinely and immediately

27 processed for other players but Layana’s appeal was never processed. Other players

28 only had to provide minimal information to the trainers about non-basketball injury.

2063-1002 / 414820.1

24
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 26 of 39 Page ID #:327

1 Haley was required to provide extensive medical documents including doctor’s

2 notes. Other players had the support of the coach in getting medical clearance from

3 the trainers. Haley had no support from her coach.

4

90. Coach Ryan is responsible for the discrimination of his assistant

5 coaches, trainers and academic coordinator because he directed and encouraged the

6 discrimination. He had actual knowledge of the discrimination and was deliberately

7 indifferent to it.

8

91. The athletic director had actual knowledge of the discrimination and

9 was deliberately indifferent to it.

10

92. The Title IX coordinator had actual knowledge of the discrimination

11 and was deliberately indifferent to it.

12

93. Defendant Pepperdine University had actual knowledge of the

13 discrimination and was deliberately indifferent to it.

14

94. Defendant’s motive in the discrimination was to get Plaintiffs off the

15 basketball team because they were lesbians who were in a relationship. This

16 discrimination was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm.

17

95. Plaintiffs’ harm included among other things the following. Layana

18 suffered extreme emotional distress which resulted in her attempted suicide. She

19 was forced to give up playing basketball, lose her scholarship and leave the

20 University. Haley suffered extreme emotional distress, the wrongful

21 disqualification of playing basketball for the team, the loss of her scholarship, and

22 leaving the University.

23

96. Defendant Pepperdine University ratified the discrimination once it had

24 knowledge of the conduct and refused to prevent it from continuing. Coach Ryan

25 was responsible for the discrimination and was a managing agent of the University.

26 The discrimination was malicious and oppressive. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled

27 to punitive damages.

28

2063-1002 / 414820.1

25
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 27 of 39 Page ID #:328

1

Harassment

2

97. Coach Ryan intentionally, severely, and pervasively harassed Plaintiffs

3 because they were lesbians who were having a relationship on the team by including

4 but not limited to the following. He continually asked questions about their sexual

5 orientation. He encouraged his assistant coaches, trainers and academic coordinator

6 to ask questions about Plaintiffs’ sexual orientation. He punished Plaintiffs unfairly

7 for minor violations. The trainers demanded Plaintiffs furnish their complete

8 current and future gynecologist medical report for no legitimate reason. He refused

9 to allow Layana to attend basketball practice because of her injury. He refused to

10 process Layana’s appeal to the NCAA so that she can play immediately. He refused

11 to allow Haley to play basketball on the basis that she had not provided sufficient

12 medical information on her non-basketball injury. He refused to help Haley to get

13 medical clearance from the trainers.

14

98. The harassing conduct was so severe, and pervasive that a reasonable

15 person in Plaintiffs’ circumstances would have considered the University’s

16 environment to be hostile and abusive. Plaintiffs considered the University’s

17 environment to be hostile and abusive.

18

99. Coach Ryan is responsible for the harassment of his assistant coaches,

19 trainers and academic coordinator because he directed and encouraged the

20 harassment. He had actual knowledge of the harassment and was deliberately

21 indifferent to it.

22

100. The athletic director had the actual knowledge of the harassment and

23 was deliberately indifferent to it.

24

101. The Title IX compliance officer had the actual knowledge of the

25 harassment and was deliberately indifferent to it.

26

102. Defendant Pepperdine University had the actual knowledge of the

27 harassment and was deliberately indifferent to it.

28

103. Defendant’s motive in the discrimination was to get Plaintiffs off the

2063-1002 / 414820.1

26
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 28 of 39 Page ID #:329

1 basketball team because they were lesbians who were in a relationship. This

2 harassment was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm.

3

104. Plaintiffs’ harm included among other things the following. Layana

4 suffered extreme emotional distress which resulted in her attempted suicide. She

5 was forced to give up playing basketball, lose her scholarship and leave the

6 University. Haley suffered extreme emotional distress, the disqualification of

7 playing basketball for the team, the loss of her scholarship, and leaving the

8 University.

9

105. Defendant Pepperdine University ratified the harassment once it had

10 knowledge of the conduct and refused to prevent it from continuing. Coach Ryan

11 was responsible for the harassment and was a managing agent of the University.

12 The harassment was malicious and oppressive. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to

13 punitive damages.

14

Retaliation

15

106. Plaintiffs complained to the athletic director that Coach Ryan, his

16 assistant coaches, trainers and academic coordinator had harassed and discriminated

17 against them because Coach Ryan believed that Plaintiffs were lesbians who were in

18 a relationship on the team.

19

107. Plaintiffs’ reporting of Coach Ryan’s conduct and that of his assistant

20 coaches, trainers and academic coordinator to the athletic director was a motivating

21 factor in Coach Ryan continuing to harass and discriminate them.

22

108. Coach Ryan is responsible for the retaliatory conduct of his assistant

23 coaches, trainers and academic coordinator because he directed and encouraged

24 their retaliatory conduct. He had actual knowledge of the retaliatory conduct and

25 was deliberately indifferent to it.

26

109. The athletic director had the actual knowledge of the retaliatory

27 conduct and was deliberately indifferent to it.

28

110. The Title IX coordinator had the actual knowledge of the retaliatory

2063-1002 / 414820.1

27
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 29 of 39 Page ID #:330

1 conduct and was deliberately indifferent to it.

2

111. Defendant Pepperdine University had the actual knowledge of the

3 retaliatory conduct and was deliberately indifferent to it.

4

112. The retaliatory conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’

5 harm.

6

113. Plaintiffs’ harm included among other things the following: Layana

7 suffered extreme emotional distress which resulted in her attempted suicide. She

8 was forced to give up playing basketball, lose her scholarship and leave the

9 University. Haley suffered extreme emotional distress, the disqualification of

10 playing basketball for the team, the loss of her scholarship, and leaving the

11 University.

12

114. Defendant Pepperdine University ratified the retaliatory conduct once it

13 had knowledge of the conduct and refused to prevent it from continuing. Coach

14 Ryan was responsible for the retaliatory conduct and was a managing agent of the

15 University. The retaliatory conduct was malicious and oppressive. Therefore,

16 Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages.

17

CLAIM III – VIOLATION OF TITLE IX, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681, ET SEQ.

18

(Deliberate Indifference to Harassment)

19

115. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 114 as

20 if set forth in full herein.

21

116. At all relevant times, the educational programs and/or activities at

22 Pepperdine received federal financial assistance. Pepperdine receives Federal

23 financial assistance through, inter alia, the Pell Grants that fund the education of

24 certain Pepperdine students, as well as other funds.

25

117. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et

26 seq. (“Title IX”) provides that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of

27 sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to

28

2063-1002 / 414820.1

28
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 30 of 39 Page ID #:331

1 discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial

2 assistance.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a).

3

118. Title IX defines the educational institutions covered by its requirements

4 as “any public or private preschool, elementary, or secondary school, or any

5 institution of vocational, professional, or higher education . . .” 20 U.S.C. §

6 1681(c).

7

119. Title IX confers a benefit on persons discriminated against on the basis

8 of sex, and Plaintiffs are members of that category of persons for whose special

9 benefit the statute was enacted.

10

120. Plaintiffs had a right to not be subject to sexual discrimination,

11 harassment or abuse while they participated in the educational programs and

12 activities while students at Pepperdine.

13

121. Pepperdine’s harassment and discrimination against Plaintiffs by

14 members of its administration, faculty, and staff are sexual discrimination and/or

15 harassment prohibited by Title IX, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq. because such

16 harassment was based on their gender and their failure to conform to stereotypical

17 views of females.

18

122. Plaintiffs’ reports, and attempts to report, to Pepperdine’s Head Coach

19 of the Women’s Basketball Team, its Athletic Director, and Title IX Coordinator,

20 were reports to appropriate persons including Coach Ryan, Dr. Potts, and Tabatha,

21 the Title IX Coordinator, who had authority to take corrective action that could have

22 ended the discrimination.

23

123. Further, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Pepperdine, through

24 these representatives and others, had actual notice of the pervasive harassment of,

25 discrimination of, and violation of Plaintiffs’ rights as a result of prior complaints

26 concerning actions by the faculty, administration, and staff.

27

124. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Coach Ryan, Dr. Potts and

28 Tabatha each had authority to address the acts of discrimination and harassment, and

2063-1002 / 414820.1

29
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 31 of 39 Page ID #:332

1 institute corrective measures including, but not limited to, protecting Plaintiffs from

2 such treatment.

3

125. The decisions of these individuals, and each of them, to refuse to

4 address Plaintiffs’ allegations, to continue the systemic policies and practices

5 directed at them despite multiple complaints, and to refuse institute any corrective

6 measures, were official decisions to ignore the pervasive and serious harassment and

7 discrimination to which Plaintiffs were being subjected on account of their sex,

8 gender, and failure to conform to stereotypical views of females.

9

126. These actions, and inactions, by these individuals amounted to

10 deliberate indifference by Pepperdine to the reports, and to Plaintiffs’ rights to not

11 be subject to sexual discrimination, harassment, or abuse while they participated in

12 the educational programs and activities, including, but not limited to, the women’s

13 varsity basketball program while students at Pepperdine.

14

127. As a result of this deliberate indifference Plaintiffs have been faced

15 with the dilemma of maintaining strict secrecy and confidentiality over their private

16 lives or risk harassment or even expulsion from Pepperdine.

17

128. Pepperdine’s harassment of Plaintiffs, its repeated failure to take

18 corrective actions, and its deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ reports were

19 malicious and oppressive, and its agents acted with reckless and callous disregard of

20 or indifference to Plaintiffs’ complaints and well-being such that Plaintiffs are

21 entitled to punitive and exemplary damages for the Pepperdine’s conduct.

22

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court

23 enter judgment against Pepperdine by awarding compensatory damages, attorneys’

24 fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, punitive damages, and such other and

25 further relief as this Court deems reasonable and just.

26 / / /

27 / / /

28 / / /

2063-1002 / 414820.1

30
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 32 of 39 Page ID #:333

1 CLAIM IV – VIOLATION OF TITLE IX, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681, ET SEQ.

2

(Systemic Intentional Discrimination)

3

129. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1 through

4 128 as if set forth herein in full.

5

130. At all relevant times, the educational programs and/or activities at

6 Pepperdine received federal financial assistance. Pepperdine receives Federal

7 financial assistance through, inter alia, the Pell Grants that fund the education of

8 certain Pepperdine students and other funds.

9

131. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et

10 seq. (“Title IX”) provides that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of

11 sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to

12 discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial

13 assistance.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a).

14

132. Title IX defines the educational institutions covered by its requirements

15 as “any public or private preschool, elementary, or secondary school, or any

16 institution of vocational, professional, or higher education . . .” 20 U.S.C. §

17 1681(c).

18

133. Title IX confers a benefit on persons discriminated against on the basis

19 of sex, and Plaintiffs are members of the category of individuals for whose special

20 benefit the statute was enacted.

21

134. Pepperdine represents in its promotional materials to applicants and its

22 official communications to students, such as in the Student Handbook, that ““We do

23 not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of any status or condition protected by

24 applicable federal or state law. . . We respect the inherent worth of each member of

25 the community. We do not engage in any forms of harassment of others.”

26

135. Contrary to these representations Pepperdine has an express policy and

27 practice, known to its administration, faculty, and staff, that it in fact discriminates

28 against students and specifically Plaintiffs that are, or that Pepperdine perceives to

2063-1002 / 414820.1

31
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 33 of 39 Page ID #:334

1 be, LGBT.

2

136. Pursuant to Pepperdine’s official, but publicly undisclosed, policy and

3 practice, it urges its administration, faculty, and staff to engage in efforts to identify

4 students, such as Plaintiffs believed to be LGBT, to pressure Plaintiffs to disclose

5 their sexual orientation, and then to harass or pressure Plaintiffs to withdraw from

6 school, be eliminated from any athletic teams (including the elimination of any

7 athletic scholarships), and/or to be expelled from the school.

8

137. Pepperdine’s harassment of Plaintiffs based on their sexual orientation,

9 perceived sexual orientation, and/or failure to comply with expected gender roles, is

10 harassment based on “sex” for purposes of Pepperdine’s obligations under Title IX

11 not to discriminate against students based on their sex.

12

138. Pepperdine’s policies and practices directed at the identification,

13 harassment, and targeting of Plaintiffs amount to institutional discrimination by

14 Pepperdine in violation of Title IX including the requirement that students not be

15 excluded from participation in programs based on their sex.

16

139. Pepperdine’s policies and practices, and their effect on Plaintiffs, were

17 malicious and oppressive, and its agents acted with reckless and callous disregard of

18 or indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights such that Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive and

19 exemplary damages for the Pepperdine’s conduct.

20

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court

21 enter judgment against Pepperdine, by awarding compensatory damages, punitive

22 damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and costs, and such other

23 and further relief as this Court deems reasonable and just.

24

CLAIM V – VIOLATION OF TITLE IX, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681, ET SEQ.

25

(Retaliation for Complaints About Discrimination)

26

140. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1 through

27 142 as if set forth herein in full.

28 / / /

2063-1002 / 414820.1

32
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 34 of 39 Page ID #:335

1

141. At all relevant times, the educational programs and/or activities at

2 Pepperdine received federal financial assistance. Pepperdine receives Federal

3 financial assistance through, inter alia, the Pell Grants that fund the education of

4 certain Pepperdine students.

5

142. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et

6 seq. (“Title IX”) provides that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of

7 sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to

8 discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial

9 assistance.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a).

10

143. Title IX defines the educational institutions covered by its requirements

11 as “any public or private preschool, elementary, or secondary school, or any

12 institution of vocational, professional, or higher education . . .” 20 U.S.C. §

13 1681(c).

14

144. Title IX confers a benefit on persons discriminated against on the basis

15 of sex, and Plaintiffs clearly are members of the category of individuals for whose

16 special benefit the statute was enacted.

17

145. Pepperdine retaliated against Plaintiffs after they reported the

18 harassment and discrimination to which they were being subjected to persons with

19 authority to address the acts of discrimination and harassment, and institute

20 corrective measures, including Coach Ryan, Dr. Potts and Tabatha, Pepperdine’s

21 Title IX Coordinator.

22

146. Specifically, after Plaintiffs reported and complained about the

23 harassment to which they were being subjected, including complaints made to the

24 Coaches and other staff as alleged herein.

25

147. Retaliation against students who report harassment based on their

26 sexual orientation, their perceived sexual orientation, and/or their failure to conform

27 to stereotypical views of females is actionable discrimination under Title IX.

28 / / /

2063-1002 / 414820.1

33
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 35 of 39 Page ID #:336

1

148. Pepperdine’s retaliation toward Plaintiffs was malicious and

2 oppressive, and engaged in with reckless and callous disregard of or indifference to

3 Plaintiffs’ complaints and well-being such that Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive and

4 exemplary damages for the Pepperdine’s conduct.

5

CLAIM VI – VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH ACT,

6

California Civil Code §§ 51 et seq.

7

(Discrimination)

8 149. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1 through
9 151 as if set forth herein in full.
10 150. The California Unruh Act, California Civil Code section 51, et seq. (the
11 “Unruh Act”), provides, inter alia, that “All persons within the jurisdiction of this
12 state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, … or sexual orientation are
13 entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or
14 services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” Cal. Civ. Code §
15 51(b).
16 151. Schools such as Pepperdine are “business establishments” covered by
17 the Unruh Act.
18 152. Pepperdine discriminated against Plaintiffs in connection with its
19 provision of full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, and
20 services based on Plaintiffs’ sexual orientation and perceived sexual orientation.
21 153. Plaintiffs have suffered actual damages, including both emotional and
22 financial damages, as a result of Pepperdine’s actions in breach of the Unruh Act.
23 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter
24 judgment against Pepperdine by awarding compensatory damages, treble damages
25 pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a), attorney’s fees pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §
26 52(a), costs, and such other and further relief as this Court deems reasonable and
27 just.
28

2063-1002 / 414820.1

34
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 36 of 39 Page ID #:337

1 CLAIM VII – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

2

154. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations set forth above in paragraphs 1 through

3 156 as if set forth herein in full.

4

155. Pepperdine’s conduct was intentional and malicious and done for the

5 purpose of causing Plaintiffs to suffer humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional

6 and physical distress particularly targeted to have them resign from the Women’s

7 Basketball Team and/or as students of the University.

8

156. As a proximate result of Pepperdine’s conduct Plaintiffs suffered severe

9 emotional distress as described above including White’s suicide attempt.

10

157. Plaintiffs suffered severe humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional

11 and physical distress, and have been injured in mind and body.

12

158. Pepperdine’s actions and inactions toward Plaintiffs were malicious

13 and oppressive, and engaged in with reckless and callous disregard of or

14 indifference to Plaintiffs’ complaints and well-being such that Plaintiffs are entitled

15 to punitive and exemplary damages for the Pepperdine’s conduct

16

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court

17 enter judgment against Pepperdine by awarding compensatory damages, attorneys’

18 fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, punitive damages, and such other and

19 further relief as this Court deems reasonable and just.

20

RELIEF REQUESTED

21

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against all Defendants as

22 follows:

23

a. For compensatory damages;

24

b. For emotional distress;

25

c. For punitive damages;

26

d. For prejudgment and post judgment interest;

27

e. For costs of suit;

28

f. For attorney’s fees; and for

2063-1002 / 414820.1

35
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 37 of 39 Page ID #:338

1

g. Such other and further relief as this court may deem proper and just.

2

3 Dated: May 26, 2015

Respectfully submitted:

4

ZUBER LAWLER & DEL DUCA LLP

5

JEREMY J. GRAY

6

JEFFREY J. ZUBER

7

8

By: /s/ Jeremy J. Gray

9

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Haley Videckis

10

and Layana White

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2063-1002 / 414820.1

36
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 38 of 39 Page ID #:339

1

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

2

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.

3

4 Dated: May 26, 2015

Respectfully submitted:

5

ZUBER LAWLER & DEL DUCA LLP

6

JEREMY J. GRAY

7

JEFFREY J. ZUBER

8

9

By: /s/ Jeremy J. Gray Attorneys for Plaintiffs Haley Videckis

10

and Layana White

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2063-1002 / 414820.1

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 31 Filed 05/26/15 Page 39 of 39 Page ID #:340

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

3

At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this

4

action. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 777 S. Figueroa Street, 37th Floor, Los Angeles, California

5 90017 USA.

6

On May 26, 2015, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: on the

7 interested parties in this action as follows:

8

Paula Tripp Victor ptv@amclaw.com

9 Peter B. Rustin

10

pbr@amclaw.com ANDERSON, McPHARLIN &

11 CONNERS LLP

12

444 South Flower Street 31st Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-2901

13 Telephone: (213) 688-0080

14

Facsimile: (213) 622-7594 Attorneys for Defendant Pepperdine

15 University

16

17 BY CM/ECF NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING: I caused said document(s) to be served by means of this Court's electronic transmission of the Notice of
18 Electronic Filing through the Court's transmission facilities, to the parties and/or

19 counsel who are registered CM/ECF Users set forth in the service list obtained from

this Court.

20

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of

21 America that the foregoing is true and correct and that I am employed in the office

of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made.

22

Executed on May 26, 2015, at Los Angeles, California.

23

24

/s/ Robert Mendoza

25

Robert Mendoza

26

27

28

2063-1002 / 414820.1

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

 </s> 1

2

3

O

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 HALEY VIDECKIS AND LAYANA WHITE,
12 Plaintiffs,
13 v.
14 PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY, a
15 corporation doing business in California,
16 Defendant.
17 ___________________________
18

) Case No. CV 15-00298 DDP (JCx) ) ) ) AMENDED ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT ) PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY’S MOTION TO ) DISMISS THIRD, FOURTH, AND FIFTH ) CAUSES OF ACTION OF THE THIRD ) AMENDED COMPLAINT ) ) [AMENDED AS TO TYPOGRAPHICAL ) ERROR IN ORIGINAL CAPTION ONLY] ) ) [Dkt. No. 33] )

19

Presently before the Court is Defendant Pepperdine University

20 (“Pepperdine”)’s Motion to Dismiss the Third, Fourth and Fifth

21 Causes of Action of the Third Amended Complaint and Prayer for

22 Prejudgment Interest Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (“MTD”).

23 (Dkt. No. 33.) Having considered the parties’ submissions and

24 heard oral argument, the Court DENIES the motion and adopts the

25 following order.

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

1 I. BACKGROUND

2

Plaintiffs in this case are Haley Videckis (“Videckis”) and

3 Layana White (“White”). Videckis is a former member of

4 Pepperdine’s women’s basketball team who transferred to Pepperdine

5 from Arizona State University in July 2013. (Third Amended

6 Complaint (“TAC”), Dkt. No. 31, ¶¶ 1, 47.) White is also a former

7 member of Pepperdine’s women’s basketball team who transferred to

8 Pepperdine from Arizona State University in January 2014. (TAC ¶¶

9 2, 47.) Defendant Pepperdine is a university located in

10 California. (Id. ¶ 3.) Pepperdine receives funds from the federal

11 government and from the state of California. (Id.) Ryan

12 Weisenberg (“Coach Ryan”) is the head coach of the Pepperdine

13 women’s basketball team. (Id. ¶ 7.) Adi Conlogue (“Conlogue”) is

14 an athletic academic coordinator of the Pepperdine women’s

15 basketball team. (Id. ¶ 13.)

16

Plaintiffs’ suit arises out of allegedly intrusive and

17 discriminatory actions that Pepperdine and its employees committed

18 against Plaintiffs on account of Plaintiffs’ dating relationship.

19 Plaintiffs allege that, in the spring of 2014, Coach Ryan and

20 others on the staff of the women’s basketball team came to the

21 conclusion that Plaintiffs were lesbians and were in a lesbian

22 relationship. (Id. ¶ 17.) Plaintiffs further allege that Coach

23 Ryan and the coaching staff were concerned about the possibility of

24 the relationship causing turmoil within the team. (Id.)

25 Plaintiffs allege that, due to their concerns, Coach Ryan and

26 members of the coaching staff harassed and discriminated against

27 Plaintiffs in an effort to force Plaintiffs to quit the team.

28 (Id.)

2

1

Plaintiffs allege that, beginning in February 2014, Conlogue

2 would hold individual meetings with each of the Plaintiffs in order

3 to determine Plaintiffs’ sexual orientation and their relationship

4 status. (Id. ¶¶ 19-22.) During these meetings Conlogue

5 specifically asked Plaintiffs whether there were any gay or

6 bisexual players on the women’s basketball team. (Id. ¶ 21.)

7 Conlogue would ask follow-up questions consisting of, among other

8 things, how close Plaintiffs were, whether they took vacations

9 together, where they slept, whether they pushed their beds

10 together, whether they went on dates, and whether they would live

11 together. (Id. ¶ 22) The questioning lasted at least through June

12 2014. (Id. ¶ 25.)

13

At the end of April, White reported to Coach Ryan that

14 Conlogue was constantly trying to obtain information about White’s

15 personal life instead of focusing on White’s academics. (Id. ¶

16 28.) Coach Ryan assured White that he would soon have a coach

17 monitor the players’ meetings with Conlogue, as other teammates had

18 also complained about Conlogue not focusing on academics. (Id.)

19 Plaintiffs allege that Coach Ryan did not take any action to stop

20 Conlogue’s inquiries into their personal lives. (Id.) Plaintiffs

21 further allege that Conlogue’s persistent questioning during study

22 hall deprived them of educational opportunities that other

23 students, similarly situated at Pepperdine, received. (Id.)

24

On April 16, 2014, Coach Ryan held a team leadership meeting

25 where he spoke on the topic of lesbianism. (Id. ¶ 27.) In the

26 meeting, Coach Ryan stated that lesbianism was a big concern for

27 him and for women’s basketball, that it was a reason why teams

28 lose, and that it would not be tolerated on the team. (Id.)

3

1

In May 2014, White met with Coach Ryan to discuss filing an

2 appeal to the NCAA that would allow her to play basketball in her

3 first year as a transfer student. (Id. ¶ 33.) Coach Ryan assured

4 White that he would be starting the process right away. (Id.)

5 Afterwards, however, White received no updates on the progress of

6 the appeal. (Id.) On June 12, 2014 White met with the Pepperdine

7 athletic director, Dr. Steve Potts (“Dr. Potts”), at Pepperdine,

8 and learned that Dr. Potts had not been informed of any appeal on

9 her behalf. (Id. ¶ 36.)

10

White alleges that Dr. Potts offered to process the appeal for

11 her, but that she still has not received a follow up on the status

12 of her appeal. (Id.) White further alleges that another male

13 basketball player who transferred to Pepperdine was approved to

14 play in 2015 immediately after transferring despite the fact that

15 White was admitted to Pepperdine before the male player. (Id.)

16

On June 4, 2014, Videckis complained to the coaching staff

17 that Karissa Scherer (“Scherer”), an athletic trainer, had been

18 asking Videckis inappropriate questions about dating women. (Id.)

19 Additionally, Plaintiffs claim that Scherer falsely accused them of

20 breaking the training room rules. (Id. ¶ 34.) Videckis alleges

21 that Coach Ryan accused her of lying when she complained about the

22 inappropriate questions. (Id.) However, the next day Scherer

23 admitted to Coach Ryan that she did ask Videckis inappropriate

24 questions about her sexual orientation, and Coach Ryan required the

25 athletic trainer to apologize to Videckis. (Id. ¶ 35.) Coach Ryan

26 ignored Scherer’s accusations against Videckis for breaking the

27 training room rules. (Id.) A Title IX investigation confirmed

28

4

1 that Scherer improperly changed the time records so that Videckis

2 and White appeared to arrive late to their training. (Id.)

3

Plaintiffs further allege that, in early July, Conlogue

4 falsely accused Plaintiffs of academic cheating. (Id. ¶ 41.)

5 Plaintiffs allege that there was no evidence to substantiate

6 Conlogue’s claim, and the charges were later dropped. (Id.) Later

7 in July, Coach Ryan reached out to two of Plaintiffs’ teammates,

8 recommended that the teammates not live with Plaintiffs, and stated

9 that Plaintiffs were bad influences. (Id.) One of those teammates

10 subsequently came forward to Plaintiffs, informing them that Coach

11 Ryan was trying to turn the other players on the team against them.

12 (Id.)

13

On August 26, 2014, Coach Ryan and another member of the

14 coaching staff asked two of Plaintiffs’ teammates whether

15 Plaintiffs were dating. (Id. ¶ 42.) When Plaintiffs found out

16 that the coaches had been asking their teammates about Plaintiffs’

17 relationship status, White confronted Coach Ryan about the

18 questioning. (Id.) During this meeting, White was able to confirm

19 that the coaching staff had been asking teammates whether

20 Plaintiffs were dating. (Id.)

21

At some time during the semester, White raised her GPA to a

22 3.0, which under the team rules allowed her to attend study hall

23 for fewer hours. (Id. ¶ 39.) White alleges that Coach Ryan

24 immediately changed the team rule to require a minimum GPA of 3.2

25 instead of 3.0, in an effort to force White to interact with

26 Conlogue in study hall. (Id.)

27

In early September 2014, Conlogue and the coaching staff

28 accused White of being absent from a required study hall and

5

1 punished White. (Id. ¶ 44.) After the meeting where Coach Ryan

2 and Conlogue issued White’s punishment, Conlogue walked up to White

3 with a book White needed and slammed the book on the desk in front

4 of White. (Id.) That night, White attempted to commit suicide.

5 (Id.)

6

In June 2014, Videckis reported to Scherer that she was

7 experiencing pain in her tailbone that she believed stemmed from

8 basketball training, but that the injury would not affect her

9 ability to play basketball. (Id. ¶ 48.) Videckis saw two separate

10 doctors, neither of whom restricted her ability to play basketball.

11 (Id.)

12

On September 9, 2014, Videckis informed Coach Ryan that she

13 would miss practice on September 12 because she was getting tested

14 for cervical cancer. (Id. ¶ 53.) Videckis alleges that Scherer

15 requested her gynecological records, but that she refused to give

16 Pepperdine access because those records were unrelated to her

17 ability to play basketball. (Id. ¶ 54.) Plaintiffs allege that no

18 other women or men on the basketball teams were asked to provide

19 similar medical records. (Id.)

20

On September 16, 2014, Videckis met with Dr. Green at the

21 Pepperdine Health Center, who told her that she was cleared for her

22 condition. (Id. ¶ 56.) After leaving her appointment that day,

23 Videckis received an email from Scherer that stated Videckis would

24 not be cleared for participation unless she provided the athletic

25 medicine center with documentation from a spine specialist relating

26 to her tailbone injury. (Id. ¶ 57.)

27

On September 17, Videckis called the health center to request

28 documentation. (Id.) That same day, Videckis brought her “MRI,

6

1 diagnosis, and treatment of prescription” to the athletic training

2 room. (Id. ¶ 58.) Afterwards, Videckis received emails from the

3 athletic trainers informing her that the documentation she provided

4 was insufficient, and that she needed to provide them with a

5 diagnosis and treatment plan. (Id. ¶ 59.) Videckis spoke with

6 Coach Ryan, telling him that she had given the trainers all of the

7 documentation the doctor’s office had on file for her. (Id. ¶ 61.)

8 Videckis requested Coach Ryan’s assistance in speaking with the

9 trainers to clear her for her tailbone injury, but Coach Ryan

10 informed Videckis that he would not help her. (Id.) Videckis

11 replied to the emails, informing the trainers that her diagnosis

12 was in the documentation she had provided, but received no

13 response. (Id.)

14

On September 19, 2014, Videckis met with Dr. Potts, the

15 Pepperdine athletic director, and told him of her concerns

16 regarding unfair treatment by the women’s basketball staff. (Id.)

17 Videckis told Dr. Potts that she felt that the coaching staff was

18 trying to keep her and White from playing, and furthermore that

19 they were trying to get Plaintiffs kicked out of the school. (Id.

20 ¶ 64.) Videckis alleges that Dr. Potts was very rude during the

21 meeting and also that he yelled at her for bringing the issue to

22 his attention. (Id.)

23

That same day, Videckis called Coach Ryan and told him that

24 she was very unhappy with the way she had been treated. (Id.)

25 Coach Ryan then told her that she would need to make a decision as

26 to whether she wanted to remain on the team by Sunday. (Id.)

27 Videckis told him that she would need until Monday. (Id.) On

28 Monday, Videckis called Coach Ryan and told him that she needed

7

1 more time. (Id.) In response, Coach Ryan told her that he needed

2 her decision by 5pm that day; otherwise, he would tell Dr. Potts

3 that Videckis had quit voluntarily. (Id. ¶ 65.)

4

Videckis sent Dr. Potts an email on September 24, stating that

5 she had not made a decision to quit, and that she would like to

6 speak with Dr. Potts later that week when she was back in town.

7 (Id. ¶ 66.) Dr. Potts replied, saying that due to Videckis’

8 concerns, the school had begun an investigation, and that until

9 then, as requested, Videckis would be relieved from activities

10 having to do with the basketball team. (Id. ¶ 67.)

11

On November 7, 2014, Videckis received a letter from the Title

12 IX coordinator. (Id. ¶ 68.) The letter stated that there was

13 insufficient evidence to conclude that harassment or sexual

14 orientation discrimination had occurred, and further that according

15 to the team doctor, Dr. Green had not received the documentation

16 necessary to assess Videckis’s fitness to play basketball. (Id.)

17 On December 1, 2014, Videckis sent the university a doctor’s note

18 stating that “[i]t is acceptable for [Videckis] to return to

19 basketball without restriction.” (Id. ¶ 69.) Neither Videckis nor

20 White were ever cleared to play basketball. (Id.)

21

Plaintiffs previously filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)

22 that included a discrimination claim under Title IX. (Dkt. No.

23 11.) Pepperdine moved to dismiss the FAC and argued that Title IX

24 did not cover claims based on sexual orientation discrimination.

25 (Dkt. No. 13.) Plaintiffs, in their opposition to the motion,

26 asked for leave to amend their Title IX cause of action. (Dkt. No.

27 20.) The Court granted Pepperdine’s motion, although it noted that

28 it was inclined to find that Title IX did cover the types of

8

1 actions alleged in the FAC. (Dkt. No. 25.) Plaintiffs have now

2 filed a TAC.

3

Plaintiffs’ TAC alleges seven causes of action: (1) violation

4 of the right of privacy under the California Constitution; (2)

5 violation of California Educational Code §§ 220, 66251, and 66270;

6 (3) violation of Title IX - deliberate indifference; (4) violation

7 of Title IX - intentional discrimination; (5) violation of Title IX

8 - retaliation for complaints against discrimination; (6) violation

9 of the Unruh Act, California Civil Code §§ 51 et seq.; and (7)

10 intentional infliction of emotional distress. (See generally TAC.)

11 Pepperdine now moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ third, fourth, and

12 fifth causes of action for failure to state a claim and moves to

13 dismiss the claim for prejudgment interest. (See generally MTD.)

14 II. LEGAL STANDARD

15

A 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss requires the court to determine

16 the sufficiency of the plaintiff's complaint and whether or not it

17 contains a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

18 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Under

19 Rule 12(b)(6), a court must (1) construe the complaint in the light

20 most favorable to the plaintiff, and (2) accept all well-pleaded

21 factual allegations as true, as well as all reasonable inferences

22 to be drawn from them. See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266

23 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001), amended on denial of reh’g, 275 F.3d

24 1187 (9th Cir. 2001); Pareto v. F.D.I.C., 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th

25 Cir. 1998).

26

In order to survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the

27 complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as

28 true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”

9

1 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.

2 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). However,

3 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,

4 supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal,

5 556 U.S. at 678. Dismissal is proper if the complaint “lacks a

6 cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable

7 legal theory.” Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d

8 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 561-63

9 (dismissal for failure to state a claim does not require the

10 appearance, beyond a doubt, that the plaintiff can prove “no set of

11 facts” in support of its claim that would entitle it to relief). A

12 complaint does not “suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’

13 devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678

14 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). “A claim has facial

15 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows

16 the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is

17 liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. The Court need not accept

18 as true “legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form

19 of factual allegations.” Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328

20 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003).

21 III. DISCUSSION

22

Pepperdine advances three main arguments in support of its

23 motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ three Title IX causes of action:

24 first, that Title IX does not apply to claims based on sexual

25 orientation discrimination; second, that Plaintiffs’ allegations do

26 not support a Title IX claim based on gender stereotype

27 discrimination; and third, that the Title IX claims should be

28 dismissed because they are uncertain and not legally cognizable.

10

1 (MTD at 5-22, 24-25.) Pepperdine also contends that the fifth

2 cause of action, for retaliation under Title IX, fails because

3 Plaintiffs have not alleged any actionable retaliation. (Id. at

4 22-24.) Finally, Pepperdine moves to dismiss the “claim for

5 prejudgment interest.” (Id. at 25.)

6

A. Plaintiffs’ Third, Fourth, and Fifth Claims Under Title IX

7

Title IX provides, in relevant part, that “[n]o person in the

8 United States shall, on the basis of sex . . . be subjected to

9 discrimination under any education program or activity receiving

10 Federal financial assistance.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). Congress

11 enacted Title IX with the twin objectives of avoiding the use of

12 federal resources to support discriminatory practices and providing

13 individual citizens effective protection against those practices.

14 Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 286 (1998).

15

In interpreting Title IX, courts often look to interpretations

16 of Title VII for reference. See, e.g., Franklin v. Gwinnett Cnty.

17 Pub. Sch., 503 U.S. 60, 75 (1992). The Ninth Circuit has held that

18 the legislative history of Title IX “strongly suggests that

19 Congress meant for similar substantive standards to apply under

20 Title IX as had been developed under Title VII.” Emeldi v. Univ.

21 of Oregon, 698 F.3d 715, 724 (9th Cir. 2012).

22

Title IX’s prohibition of discrimination “on the basis of sex”

23 encompasses both sex - in the biological sense - as well as gender.

24 Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1202 (9th Cir. 2000).

25 Furthermore, discrimination based on gender stereotypes constitutes

26 discrimination on the basis of sex under Title VII. Price

27 Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 250-51 (1989); Nichols v.

28 Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 256 F.3d 864, 874-75 (9th Cir.

11

1 2001)(holding that discrimination against either a man or a woman

2 on the basis of gender stereotypes is prohibited). In Nichols, the

3 Ninth Circuit held that a male restaurant employee who was

4 discriminated against at work for, among other things, walking

5 “like a woman” and not having sexual intercourse with a female

6 waitress friend had established an actionable claim for sexual

7 harassment under Title VII. Nichols, 256 F.3d at 874-75.

8

Plaintiffs in this case argue that they have stated an

9 actionable Title IX claim because Title IX covers sexual

10 orientation discrimination, and even if Title IX does not

11 explicitly cover sexual orientation discrimination, the actions

12 alleged in the TAC constitute gender stereotype discrimination.

13 (Opp’n to MTD, Dkt. No. 34, at 6-13.) Further, they argue that the

14 TAC alleges a straightforward claim of discrimination on the basis

15 of sex. (Id.)

16

1. Sexual Orientation Discrimination

17

This Court, in its prior order dismissing in part Plaintiffs’

18 FAC, stated that “the line between discrimination based on gender

19 stereotyping and discrimination based on sexual orientation is

20 blurry, at best.” (Dkt. No. 25.) After further briefing and

21 argument, the Court concludes that the distinction is illusory and

22 artificial, and that sexual orientation discrimination is not a

23 category distinct from sex or gender discrimination. Thus, claims

24 of discrimination based on sexual orientation are covered by Title

25 VII and IX, but not as a category of independent claims separate

26 from sex and gender stereotype. Rather, claims of sexual

27 orientation discrimination are gender stereotype or sex

28 discrimination claims.

12

1

Other courts have acknowledged the difficulty of

2 distinguishing sexual orientation discrimination from

3 discrimination based on sex or gender stereotypes. See, e.g.,

4 Prowel v. Wise Bus. Forms, Inc., 579 F.3d 285, 291 (3d Cir. 2009)

5 (stating that “the line between sexual orientation discrimination

6 and discrimination ‘because of sex’ can be difficult to draw”);

7 Dawson v. Bumble & Bumble, 398 F.3d 211, 217 (2d Cir. 2005)

8 (acknowledging that it would be difficult to determine if an

9 actionable Title VII claim was stated when a plaintiff stated she

10 was discriminated against based on her sex, her failure to conform

11 to gender norms, and her sexual orientation, because “the borders

12 [between these classes] are so imprecise” (alteration in

13 original)); Centola v. Potter, 183 F. Supp. 2d 403, 408 (D. Mass.

14 2002)(acknowledging that “the line between discrimination because

15 of sexual orientation and discrimination because of sex is hardly

16 clear”). Simply put, the line between sex discrimination and

17 sexual orientation discrimination is “difficult to draw” because

18 that line does not exist, save as a lingering and faulty judicial

19 construct.

20

Pepperdine cites to opinions from various federal courts that

21 state categorically that sexual orientation discrimination is not

22 covered under Title IX. (See MTD at 6-14.) However, the Ninth

23 Circuit has held only that “an employee’s sexual orientation is

24 irrelevant for purposes of Title VII,” and that “[i]t neither

25 provides nor precludes a cause of action for sexual harassment.”

26 Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 305 F.3d 1061, 1063 (9th Cir. 2002)

27

28

13

1 (en banc) (plurality opinion).1 Furthermore, the cases upon which

2 Pepperdine relies, for the most part, dismiss analogous sexual

3 orientation-based claims in a cursory and conclusory fashion. See,

4 e.g., Johnson v. Eckstrom, No. C-11-2052 EMC, 2011 WL 5975039, at

5 *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2011) (stating, simply, that “neither Title

6 VII nor any other federal law protects against discrimination on

7 the basis of sexual orientation”). The Court rejects the reasoning

8 of these cases, which do not fully evaluate the nature of claims

9 based on sexual orientation discrimination.

10

In sexual orientation discrimination cases, focusing on the

11 actions or appearance of the alleged victim of discrimination

12 rather than the bias of the alleged perpetrator asks the wrong

13 question and compounds the harm. A plaintiff’s “actual” sexual

14 orientation is irrelevant to a Title IX or Title VII claim because

15 it is the biased mind of the alleged discriminator that is the

16 focus of the analysis. This is especially true given that

17 sexuality cannot be defined on a homosexual or heterosexual basis;

18 it exists on a continuum. See Kenji Yoshino, The Epistemic

19 Contract of Bisexual Erasure, 52 Stan. L. Rev. 353, 380-81 (2000)

20 (discussing the “Kinsey scale,” which conceived of sexual

21 orientation as a continuum with six ratings). It is not the victim

22 of discrimination who should be forced to put his or her sexual

23 orientation on trial. We do not demand of a victim of alleged

24

25

1 The concurring judges only joined in the result of the plurality opinion, as the concurrences would have found “actionable

26

gender stereotyping harassment.” See Rene, 305 F.3d at 1068 (Pregerson, Trott, and Berzon, JJ., concurring); id. at 1069-70

27

(Graber, J., concurring) (finding facts indistinguishable from Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 532 U.S. 75 (1998),

28

where the Court held same sex harassment was covered by Title VII); id. at 1070 (Fisher, J., concurring).

14

1 religious discrimination, “Prove that you are a real Catholic,

2 Mormon, or Jew.” Just as it would be absurd to demand that a

3 victim of alleged racial discrimination prove he is black, it is

4 absurd to demand a victim of alleged sex discrimination based on

5 sexual orientation prove she is a lesbian. The contrary view would

6 turn a Title IX trial into a broad inquisition into the personal

7 sexual history of the victim. Such an approach should be precluded

8 as not only highly inflammatory and offensive, but also irrelevant

9 for the purposes of the Title IX discrimination analysis.

10

Therefore, the Court finds that sexual orientation

11 discrimination is a form of sex or gender discrimination, and that

12 the “actual” orientation of the victim is irrelevant. It is

13 impossible to categorically separate “sexual orientation

14 discrimination” from discrimination on the basis of sex or from

15 gender stereotypes; to do so would result in a false choice.

16 Simply put, to allege discrimination on the basis of sexuality is

17 to state a Title IX claim on the basis of sex or gender.

18

2. Gender Stereotype Discrimination

19

It is undisputed that Title IX forbids discrimination on the

20 basis of gender stereotypes. Gender stereotyping is a concept that

21 sweeps broadly. See Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 251 (“[W]e are

22 beyond the day when an employer could evaluate employees by

23 assuming or insisting that they matched the stereotype associated

24 with their group, for ‘[i]n forbidding employers to discriminate

25 against individuals because of their sex, Congress intended to

26 strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and

27 women resulting from sex stereotypes.’”) (quoting Los Angeles Dep’t

28 of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 707 n.13 (1978)). As

15

1 discussed above, discrimination based on gender stereotyping

2 encompasses sexual orientation discrimination.

3

Plaintiffs allege here that they were discriminated against

4 because of the Pepperdine women’s basketball staff’s belief that

5 Plaintiffs were lesbian. Plaintiffs also allege that the staff’s

6 stereotypes about lesbians and lesbianism formed the basis of the

7 staff’s harassment. (TAC ¶ 19.)

8

The type of sexual orientation discrimination Plaintiffs

9 allege falls under the broader umbrella of gender stereotype

10 discrimination. Stereotypes about lesbianism, and sexuality in

11 general, stem from a person’s views about the proper roles of men

12 and women – and the relationships between them. Discrimination

13 based on a perceived failure to conform to a stereotype constitutes

14 actionable discrimination under Title IX. See Centola, 183 F.

15 Supp. 2d at 410 (“Conceivably, a plaintiff who is perceived by his

16 harassers as stereotypically masculine in every way except for his

17 actual or perceived sexual orientation could maintain a Title VII

18 cause of action alleging sexual harassment because of his sex due

19 to his failure to conform with sexual stereotypes about what ‘real’

20 men do or don’t do.”).

21

Here, Plaintiffs allege that they were repeatedly harassed and

22 treated differently from other similarly situated individuals

23 because of their perceived sexual orientation. Coaches, trainers,

24 and support staff repeatedly queried Plaintiffs about their sexual

25 orientation, their private sexual behavior, and their dating lives.

26 Plaintiffs allege that they were told lesbianism would not be

27 tolerated on the women’s basketball team. Plaintiffs further

28 allege that they were not cleared to play basketball because of

16

1 Pepperdine’s discriminatory views against lesbianism. If the

2 women’s basketball staff in this case had a negative view of

3 lesbians based on lesbians’ perceived failure to conform to the

4 staff’s views of acceptable female behavior, actions taken on the

5 basis of these negative biases would constitute gender stereotype

6 discrimination. Consequently, Plaintiffs have stated a claim for

7 discrimination because they allege that Pepperdine treated them

8 differently due to their perceived lack of conformity with gender

9 stereotypes, and further that Pepperdine discriminated against them

10 based on stereotypes about lesbianism.

11

3. Sex Discrimination

12

In addition to stating a claim based on gender stereotyping

13 discrimination, Plaintiffs have stated a claim that they were

14 discriminated against because of their sex. Discrimination on the

15 basis of sex can be defined as treating someone differently simply

16 because that person’s sex is different from a similarly situated

17 person of the opposite sex. See Manhart, 435 U.S. at 711 (applying

18 the “simple test of whether the evidence shows treatment of a

19 person in a manner which but for that person’s sex would be

20 different” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Oncale, 523 U.S. at

21 80 (describing the “critical issue” under Title VII as whether the

22 discrimination would have occurred if the sex of the victim had

23 been different).

24

Here, Plaintiffs allege that they were told that “lesbianism”

25 would not be tolerated on the team. If Plaintiffs had been males

26 dating females, instead of females dating females, they would not

27 have been subjected to the alleged different treatment. Plaintiffs

28 have stated a straightforward claim of sex discrimination under

17

1 Title IX. Cf. Latta v. Otter, 771 F.3d 456, 480 (9th Cir.

2 2014)(Berzon, J., concurring)(finding same-sex marriage bans were

3 facially discriminatory on the basis of sex because the bans

4 dictated who could marry who based on the sex of the marriage

5 participants).

6

This Court’s conclusion is in line with a recent Equal

7 Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) decision holding that

8 sexual orientation discrimination is covered under Title VII, and

9 therefore that the EEOC will treat sexual orientation

10 discrimination claims the same as other sex discrimination claims

11 under Title VII. Baldwin v. Anthony Foxx, Sec’y, Dep’t of Transp.,

12 EEOC Appeal No. 0120133080, 2015 WL 4397641, at *10, (EEOC July 16,

13 2015) (holding that “allegations of discrimination on the basis of

14 sexual orientation necessarily state a claim of discrimination on

15 the basis of sex”). The EEOC concluded that “[a]n employee could

16 show that the sexual orientation discrimination he or she

17 experienced was sex discrimination because it involved treatment

18 that would not have occurred but for the individual’s sex; because

19 it was based on the sex of the person(s) the individual associates

20 with; and/or because it was premised on the fundamental sex

21 stereotype, norm, or expectation that individuals should be

22 attracted only to those of the opposite sex.” Id. For these

23 reasons, as well as for the reasons stated in this Order, this

24 Court agrees.

25

B. Plaintiffs’ Title IX Retaliation Claim

26

Pepperdine further argues that Plaintiffs’ fifth cause of

27 action, for retaliation under Title IX, must be dismissed because

28

18

1 Plaintiffs have not alleged facts establishing a prima facie case

2 of retaliation.

3

Under Title IX, “a plaintiff who lacks direct evidence of

4 retaliation must first make out a prima facie case of retaliation

5 by showing (a) that he or she was engaged in protected activity,

6 (b) that he or she suffered an adverse action, and (c) that there

7 was a causal link between the two.” Emeldi, 698 F.3d at 724. In

8 order to make out a prima facie case, a plaintiff “need only make a

9 minimal threshold showing of retaliation.” Id.

10

Here, Plaintiffs have clearly pled a plausible claim for

11 retaliation. Plaintiffs were engaged in protected activity. They

12 complained to the coaching staff and Pepperdine’s Title IX

13 coordinator about the harassment they suffered. See Jackson v.

14 Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167, 173 (2005) (“Retaliation

15 against a person because that person has complained of sex

16 discrimination is another form of intentional sex discrimination

17 encompassed by Title IX's private cause of action.”). Furthermore,

18 Plaintiffs allege various retaliatory actions they experienced as a

19 result of their complaints. (See, e.g., TAC ¶¶ 34-36, 63-69.)

20 They allege that, ultimately, they were forced off the basketball

21 team and lost their scholarships.

22

Pepperdine argues that because Plaintiffs tried to hide their

23 relationship status, they therefore never could have made a

24 complaint about discrimination. This argument is without merit.

25 Plaintiffs clearly allege that they complained to the coaching

26 staff and school officials about the intrusive questioning and

27 harassment to which they were subjected. The fact that Plaintiffs

28 may never have explicitly told school officials that they were

19

1 dating is irrelevant to whether they complained that they were

2 being harassed. Again, requiring that Plaintiffs disclose their

3 sexual orientation or relationship status improperly focuses the

4 inquiry on the status of the victim rather than the bias of the

5 alleged harasser, and imposes a burden that Title IX does not

6 contemplate.

7

C. Uncertainty of Plaintiffs’ Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes

of Action

8

9

Pepperdine asserts that because Plaintiffs have chosen to

10 plead their Title IX theories under three separate causes of

11 action, this format renders Plaintiffs’ Title IX claims “uncertain

12 and not legally cognizable.” (See MTD at 24-25.) Pepperdine’s

13 argument is unavailing in light of the liberal pleading standards

14 of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Although Plaintiffs could

15 have pled their Title IX claims as a single cause of action, the

16 fact that they included them as three separate causes of action

17 does not require dismissal. Under Rule 8, all that is required is

18 that the complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the

19 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.

20 Civ. P. 8(a)(2). In fact, Rule 8 expressly states that “[n]o

21 technical form is required” for pleadings, and further that “[a]

22 party may set out 2 or more statements of a claim or defense

23 alternatively or hypothetically, either in a single count or

24 defense or in separate ones.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d). Accordingly,

25 Plaintiffs’ third, fourth, and fifth claims are not “legally

26 uncognizable” or “uncertain,” and cannot be dismissed for such a

27 reason.

28 ///

20

1

D. Prayer for Prejudgment Interest

2

Pepperdine also moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ prayer for

3 prejudgment interest. Strictly speaking, Plaintiffs’ request for

4 prejudgment interest is contained in their “Relief Requested”

5 rather than pled as a separate claim, and thus a motion to dismiss

6 under Rule 12(b)(6) is the improper vehicle to use in arguing

7 against prejudgment interest. Instead, Pepperdine should have

8 moved to strike the prayer for prejudgment interest. See Fed. R.

9 Civ. P. 12(f). The Court will treat Pepperdine’s motion as a

10 motion to strike with respect to the prayer for prejudgment

11 interest.

12

Plaintiffs argue that, at this stage of the proceedings,

13 because the nature of their claims remain “in flux,” the Court

14 should defer ruling on the issue of prejudgment interest until a

15 later point in the case. Plaintiffs have not responded to

16 Pepperdine’s substantive arguments.

17

California Civil Code Sections 3287 and 3288 govern awards of

18 prejudgment interest. Pepperdine contends that Plaintiffs are not

19 entitled to prejudgment interest on their state law claims because

20 the damages involved are for “the intangible, noneconomic aspects

21 of mental and emotional injury.” Greater Westchester Homeowners

22 Assn. v. City of Los Angeles, 26 Cal. 3d 86, 103 (1979). However,

23 the damages involved in the present case may go beyond mental and

24 emotional injury. Plaintiffs allege that, due to Pepperdine’s

25 actions, Plaintiffs were forced off the women’s basketball team,

26 had their scholarships revoked, and withdrew from the school. (TAC

27 ¶¶ 76-79, 136.) Damages from these types of injuries may be

28 tangible and economic, and thus eligible for prejudgment interest

21

1 under Section 3288. Accordingly, the request for prejudgment

2 interest will not be stricken.

3 IV. CONCLUSION

4

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Pepperdine’s

5 motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ third, fourth, and fifth causes of

6 action and prayer for prejudgment interest.

7

8

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

11

12 Dated: December 15, 2015 13

DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

22

 </s> Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 253 Filed 09/11/17 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:4239

1

2
JS-6
3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

10

11 HALEY VIDECKIS and LAYANA WHITE, individuals,
12 Plaintiffs,
13 v.
14 PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY, a
15 corporation doing business in California,
16 Defendant.
17

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-00298-DDP (JCx) JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY AGAINST PLAINTIFFS HALEY VIDECKIS AND LAYANA WHITE ON JURY VERDICTS [Assigned to Hon. Dean D. Pregerson, Courtroom 9C]

18

19

This action was duly tried before a jury beginning on July 18, 2017, the

20 Honorable Dean D. Pregerson, presiding. The matter was duly submitted to the jury

21 by means of two special verdicts consisting of a series of questions, one as to

22 Plaintiff HALEY VIDECKIS and one as to Plaintiff LAYANA WHITE. On

23 August 11, 2017, according to the instructions given by the Court, the jury returned

24 its verdicts by way of its answers to the questions propounded to it finding in favor

25 of Defendant PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY with respect to all claims brought

26 against it by both Plaintiff HALEY VIDECKIS and Plaintiff LAYANA WHITE.

27 (Verdict Forms, ECF Doc No. 246 and 248.)

28
1681230.1 05764-048

/ / /
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY AGAINST PLAINTIFFS HALEY VIDECKIS AND LAYANA WHITE ON JURY VERDICTS

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 253 Filed 09/11/17 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:4240

1

IT IS NOW, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED

2 as follows:

3

1. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant PEPPERDINE

4 UNIVERSITY (“PEPPERDINE”) and against Plaintiffs HALEY VIDECKIS and

5 LAYANA WHITE (“PLAINTIFFS”) on the first claim for relief in their Third

6 Amended Complaint for Violation of the Right of Privacy.

7

2. Judgment is entered in favor of PEPPERDINE and against

8 PLAINTIFFS on the second claim for relief in their Third Amended Complaint for

9 Violation of the California Education Code sections 220, 66251 and 66270.

10

3. Judgment is entered in favor of PEPPERDINE and against

11 PLAINTIFFS on the third, fourth and fifth claims for relief in their Third Amended

12 Complaint for Violation of Title IX.

13

4. Judgment is entered in favor of PEPPERDINE and against

14 PLAINTIFFS on the sixth claim for relief in their Third Amended Complaint for

15 Violation of the California Civil Code section 51, et seq. (Unruh Act).

16

5. Judgment is entered in favor of PEPPERDINE and against

17 PLAINTIFFS on the seventh claim for relief in their Third Amended Complaint for

18 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

19

6. PLAINTIFFS shall take nothing from PEPPERDINE on any claim set

20 out in this action.

21

7. Each party shall bear its own costs.

22

23 DATED: September 11, 2017

24

______________________________

25

Hon. Dean D. Pregerson

26

27

28
1681230.1 05764-048

2
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY AGAINST PLAINTIFFS HALEY VIDECKIS AND LAYANA WHITE ON JURY VERDICTS

 </s> Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 246 Filed 08/11/17 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:4165

1
2
'~` ~,
3
4

FLED CLE~sK. 11 ~~. C!~TFiICT COURT
~IJG I i ~~i
CENTRAL D~SrTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,WESTERN DIVISION

9
10 HALEY VIDECKIS and LAYANA WHITE, individuals,
11 Plaintiffs,
12 v.
13 PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY,a
14 corporation doing business in Carfornia,
15 Defendant.
16

CASE NO.2:15-CV-00298-DDP(JCx)
VERDICT FORM FOR PLAINTIFF HALEY VIDECKS
[Assigned to Hon.Dean D.Pregerson, Courtroom 9C]

17

18

VIOLATION OF RIGHT OF PRIVACY

19

1. Did PlaintiffHaley Videckis have a reasonable expectation ofprivacy?

20

21

Yes No

22

Ifyour answer to question 1 is yes, answer question 2. Ifyour answer to

23 question 1 is no,go to and answer question 10.

24

25

2. Did Defendant Pepperdine University intentionally intrude into

26 Plaintiff Videckis' privacy?

27

28

Yes No

1673953.1 05764-

-

ioozi '

Case No.2:15-CV-00298-DDP(JCx)
VERDICT FORM -HALEY VIDECKIS

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 246 Filed 08/11/17 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:4166

1

Ifyour answer to question 2 is yes, answer question 3. Ifyour answer to

2 question 2is no,go to and answer question 10.

3

4

3. Did Plaintiff Videckis consent to Defendant Pepperdine's intrusion into

5 her privacy?

6

7

Yes No

8

Ifyour answer to question 3 is no, answer question 4. Ifyour answer to

9 question 3 is yes, go to and answer question 10.

10

11

4. Was Defendant Pepperdine's intrusion into Plaintiff Videckis' privacy

12 justified?

13

14

Yes No

15

Ifyour answer to question 4 is yes, answer question S. Ifyour answer to

16 question 4 is no, go to and answer question 6.

17

18

5. If you found Defendant Pepperdine's intrusion into Plaintiff Videckis'

19 privacy wasjustified, did Plaintiff Videckis prove there was a practical, effective, 20 and less invasive method ofachieving Defendant Pepperdine's purpose?

21

22

Yes No

23

Ifyour answer to question S is yes, answer question 6. Ifyour answer to

24 question S is no, go to and answer question 1D.

25 ///

26 ///

27 ///

28

1673953.1 05764-
ioozi '

2

Case No.2:15-CV-00298-DDP(JCx)

VERDICT FORM —HALEY VIDECKIS

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 246 Filed 08/11/17 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:4167

1

6. Would Defendant Pepperdine's intrusion into Plaintiff Videckis'

2 privacy be highly offensive to a reasonable person?

3

4

Yes No

5

Ifyour answer to question 6is yes, answer question 7. Ifyour answer to

6 question 6is no, go to and answer question 10.

7

8

7. Was Plaintiff Videckis harmed by Defendant Pepperdine intruding into

9 ' her privacy?

10

11

Yes No

12

Ifyour answer to question 7 is yes, answeY question 8. Ifyour answer to

13 question 7is no, go to and answer question 10.

14

15

8. Was Defendant Pepperdine's conduct intruding into her privacy a

16 substantial factor in causing Plaintiff Videckis harm?

17

18

Yes No

19

Ifyour answer to question 8 is yes, answer question 9. Ifyour answer to

20 question 8 is no, go to and answer question 10.

21

22

9. Did Plaintiff Videckis prove by clear and convincing evidence that

23 Defendant Pepperdine acted with malice,oppression, or fraud in intruding into her

24 privacy?

25

26

Yes No

27

WhetheY your answer to question 9 is yes or no, go to and answer question

28 10.

1673953.1 05764-048201P1002/82623'I~

3

Case No.2:15-CV-00298-DDP(JCx)

VERDICT FORM -HALEY VIDECKIS

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 246 Filed 08/11/17 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:4168

1

VIOLATION OF TITLE IX AND EDUCATION CODE X66270

2

3

10. Did PlaintiffHaley Videckis suffer discrimination and/or harassment

4 based upon her sexual orientation, and/or retaliation for making complaints about

5 discrimination or harassment based upon her sexual orientation?

6

7

Yes No

8

IfyouY answer to question 10 is yes, answer question 11.Ifyour answer to

9 question 10 is no, go to and answer question 1S.

10

11

1 1. Was the discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation suffered by

12 Plaintiff Videckis so severe,pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively

13 deprived her ofthe right ofequal access to educational benefits and opportunities?

14

15

Yes No

16

Ifyour answer to question 11 is yes, answer question 12. Ifyour answeY to

17 question 11 is no, go to and answer question 1S.

18

19

12. Did Defendant Pepperdine have actual knowledge ofthe

20 discrimination, harassment,and/or retaliation suffered by Plaintiff Videckis?

21

22

Yes No

23

Ifyour answer to question 12 is yes, answer question 13.Ifyour answer to

24 question 12 is no, go to and answer question 1S.

25 ///

26 ///

27 /// 28 ///

1673953.1 05764-04820 1002/ 82623

4

Case No.2:15-CV-00298-DDP(JCx)

— NAT FV VTT1F(`KTQ

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 246 Filed 08/11/17 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:4169

1

13. Did Defendant Pepperdine act with deliberate indifference in the face

2 ofits knowledge?

3

4

Yes No

5

Ifyour answer to question 13 is yes, answer question 14.Ifyour answer to

6 question 13 is no, go to and answer question 15.

7

8

14. Did Plaintiff Videckis prove by clear and convincing evidence that

9 Defendant Pepperdine acted with malice, oppression, or fraud?

10 11 12 13 1S.

Yes No Whether your answer to question 14 is yes or no, go to and answer question

14

15

UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

16 15. Did Defendant Pepperdine University deny full and equal access to
17 accommodations,advantages,facilities, privileges, or services to PlaintiffHaley
18 Videckis? 19
~~. 20
Yes No 21
Ifyour answer to question 1S is yes, answer question 16.Ifyour answer to 22
question 15 is no, go to and answer question 19. 23

24

16. Was Defendant Pepperdine's perception ofPlaintiff Videckis' sexual

25 orientation a substantial motivating reason for Defendant Pepperdine's conduct?

26

27

Yes No

28

1673953.1 05764-04820pp1002/82623~I~

5

Case No.2:15-CV-00298-DDP(JCx)

VERDICT FORM -HALEY VIDECKIS

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 246 Filed 08/11/17 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #:4170

1

IfyouY answer to question 16 is yes, answer question 17. Ifyour answer to

2 question 16 is no, go to and answeY question 19.

3

4

17. Was PlaintiffVideckis harmed?

5'

6

Yes No

7

Ifyour answer to question 17is yes, answer question 18.Ifyour answeY to

8 question 17 is no, go to and answer question 19.

9

10

18. Was Defendant Pepperdine's conduct a substantial factor in causing

11 harm to Plaintiff Videckis?

12

13

Yes No

14

Whether your answer to question 18 is yes or no, go to and answer question

15 fL'~

16

17

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

18

19

19. Was Defendant Pepperdine University's conduct outrageous?

20

21

Yes No

22

Ifyour answer to question 19 is yes, answer question 20.Ifyour answer to

23 question 19 is no, go to and answer question 24.

24

25

26

27

28

1673953.1 05764-04820 -
~ 1002/ 82623

6

Case No.2:15-CV-00298-DDP(JCx)

VERDICT FORM —HALEY VIDECKIS

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 246 Filed 08/11/17 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #:4171

1

20. Did Defendant Pepperdine intend to cause Plaintiff Videckis emotional

2 distress or act with reckless disregard ofthe probability Plaintiff Videckis would

3 suffer emotional distress?

4

5

Yes No

6

Ifyour answer to question 20 is yes, answer question 21.Ifyour answeY to

7 question 20 is no, go to and answer question 24.

E:~

9

21. Did Plaintiff Videckis suffer severe emotional distress?

10

11

Yes No

12

Ifyour answer to question 21is yes, answer question 22.Ifyour answer to

13 question 21 is no, go to and answer question 24.

14

15

22. Was Defendant Pepperdine's conduct a substantial factor in causing

16 Plaintiff Videckis' severe emotional distress?

171

18

Yes No

19

Ifyour answer to question 22 is yes, answer question 23.Ifyour answer to

20 question 22 is no, go to and answer question 24.

21

22

23. Did Plaintiff Videckis prove by clear and convincing evidence that

23 Defendant Pepperdine acted with malice, oppression, or fraud?

24

25

Yes No

26

Whether your answer to question 23 is yes or no, go to and answer question

27 24.

28

1673953.1 05764-04820yp1002/82623~~~

']

Case No.2:15-CV-00298-DDP(JCx)

VERDICT FORM -HALEY VIDECKIS

Case 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC Document 246 Filed 08/11/17 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #:4172

1

DAMAGES

2 24. If you answered yes to questions 8, 13, 18, or 22 then specify Plaintiff
3 Haley Videckis' damages by inserting numbers in the blank spaces below. If you did
4 not answer yes to any ofthese questions,do not insert any numbers in the blanks
5 and have the presiding juror sign and date this form and submit it to the Court.
6

7

a. Past economic loss $

8

b. Future economic loss $

9

c. Past noneconomic loss, including physical

10

pain/mental suffering: $

11

d. Future noneconomic loss, including physical

12

pain/mental suffering: $

13

14

TOTAL $

15

16

IfyouY answer to question 18 is yes, then answer question 25.

17

18

25. If your answer to question 18 was yes, what amount,ifany,do you

19 award as a penalty against Pepperdine for its violation ofthe Unruh Act:

20

21

Once you have completed the verdict form, have the presiding juror sign and

22 date it and submit it to the Court.

23

24

DATED: ~~ ~,r ~~ ~-;fi 11. z~ t7

25

26

27

28

1673953.1 05764-
ioo2i '

$

Case No.2:15-CV-00298-DDP(JCx)

VERDICT FORM -HALEY VIDECKIS

 </s> General Docket United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals Docket #: 17-56548

Docketed: 10/12/2017

Nature of Suit: 3448 Civil Rights - Education

Termed: 12/19/2017

Haley Videckis, et al v. Pepperdine University

Appeal From: U.S. District Court for Central California, Los Angeles

Fee Status: Paid

Case Type Information: 1) civil 2) private 3) null

Originating Court Information:

District: 0973-2 : 2:15-cv-00298-DDP-JC

Court Reporter: Maria Rita Bustillos, Official Court Reporter

Court Reporter: Deborah Gackle, Official Court Reporter

Court Reporter: Alberto V. Ortiz, Court Reporter Supervisor

Court Reporter: Phyllis Alma Preston

Trial Judge: Dean D. Pregerson, Senior District Judge

Date Filed: 01/14/2015

Date

Date Order/Judgment Date NOA

Order/Judgment:

EOD:

Filed:

09/11/2017

09/11/2017

10/11/2017

Date Rec'd COA:
10/11/2017

Prior Cases: None

Current Cases: Lead
Companion 17-56548

Member 17-56684

Start

End

11/07/2017

HALEY VIDECKIS Plaintiff - Appellant,

Jayesh Patel, Esquire, Attorney Direct: 213-596-5620 [COR NTC Retained] Zuber Lawler & Del Duca LLP Firm: 310-807-9700 350 South Grand Avenue 32nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
Jeffrey John Zuber, Esquire, Partner Direct: 213-596-5620 [COR NTC Retained] Zuber Lawler & Del Duca LLP

LAYANA WHITE Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.

Firm: 310-807-9700 350 South Grand Avenue 32nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071
Jayesh Patel, Esquire, Attorney Direct: 213-596-5620 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)
Jeffrey John Zuber, Esquire, Partner Direct: 213-596-5620 [COR NTC Retained] (see above)

PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY, a corporation doing business in California
Defendant - Appellee,

Paula Tripp Victor, Esquire Direct: 213-688-0080 [COR LD NTC Retained] Anderson, McPharlin & Conners LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90017-3623

David R. Hunt, Esquire Direct: 213-688-0080 [COR NTC Retained] Anderson, McPharlin & Conners LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90017-3623

Eric A. Schneider, Esquire, Attorney Direct: 213-680-0080 [COR NTC Retained] Anderson, McPharlin & Conners LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90017-3623

David R. Sugden Direct: 949-717-3000 [COR NTC Retained] Call & Jensen, APC Ste. 700

610 Newport Center Drive Suite 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660

HALEY VIDECKIS; LAYANA WHITE, Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY, a corporation doing business in California, Defendant - Appellee.

10/12/2017

DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF

1
16 pg, 1.08 MB

COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows:

Mediation Questionnaire due on 10/19/2017. Transcript ordered by

11/13/2017. Transcript due 12/11/2017. Appellants Haley Videckis

and Layana White opening brief due 01/19/2018. Appellee

Pepperdine University answering brief due 02/20/2018. Appellant's

optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering

brief. [10615478] (JBS) [Entered: 10/12/2017 01:16 PM]

10/13/2017

Terminated Agnes M. Sullivan for Layana White and Haley Videckis 2 in 17-56548 (Due to incorrect ECF account information).
[10616745] (SLM) [Entered: 10/13/2017 10:30 AM]

10/19/2017

Filed (ECF) Appellee Pepperdine University Mediation

3
4 pg, 246.18 KB

Questionnaire. Date of service: 10/19/2017. [10624121] [17-56548]

(Hunt, David) [Entered: 10/19/2017 01:40 PM]

10/19/2017

Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Jayesh Patel for Appellants

4
2 pg, 109.24 KB

Haley Videckis and Layana White. Date of service: 10/19/2017.

[10624835] [17-56548] (Patel, Jayesh) [Entered: 10/19/2017 05:36

PM]

10/20/2017

Added attorney Jayesh Patel for Haley Videckis Layana White, in 5 case 17-56548. [10625459] (JJF) [Entered: 10/20/2017 11:13 AM]

10/20/2017

Filed (ECF) Appellants Haley Videckis and Layana White Mediation

6
4 pg, 78.25 KB

Questionnaire. Date of service: 10/20/2017. [10625574] [17-56548]

(Patel, Jayesh) [Entered: 10/20/2017 11:43 AM]

10/31/2017

COURT DELETED INCORRECT/DUPLICATE ENTRY. Notice 7 about deletion sent to case participants registered for electronic
filing. Correct Entry: [8]. Original Text: MEDIATION CONFERENCE SCHEDULED - Assessment Conference, 11/16/2017, 3:00 p.m. PACIFIC Time. The briefing schedule previously set by the court remains in effect. See order for

instructions and details. [10637372] (VS) [Entered: 10/31/2017 09:16 AM]

10/31/2017

MEDIATION CONFERENCE SCHEDULED - Assessment

8
5 pg, 314.13 KB

Conference, 11/16/2017, 3:00 p.m. PACIFIC Time. The briefing

schedule previously set by the court remains in effect. See order for

instructions and details. [10637466] (VS) [Entered: 10/31/2017

09:46 AM]

11/09/2017 9
1 pg, 38.34 KB

Filed order MEDIATION (SL): The time schedule order previously set by the court is amended as follows: appellants shall order the transcript by December 18, 2017; the court reporter shall file the transcript by January 16, 2018; appellants shall file an opening brief and excerpts of record on or before February 26, 2018; appellee shall file an answering brief and excerpts of record on or before March 28, 2018; appellants may file an optional reply brief within twenty one (21) days from the service date of the answering brief. [10649632] (WL) [Entered: 11/09/2017 01:13 PM]

11/20/2017

MEDIATION CONFERENCE SCHEDULED - Further Conference,

10
1 pg, 188.08 KB

11/28/2017, 3:00 p.m. Pacific Time. See order for details.

[10660003] (VS) [Entered: 11/20/2017 08:25 AM]

12/15/2017

Filed (ECF) Appellants Haley Videckis and Layana White Joint

11
2 pg, 85.92 KB

Motion to dismiss the case. Date of service: 12/15/2017. [10692964]

[17-56548] (Patel, Jayesh) [Entered: 12/15/2017 03:11 PM]

12/19/2017 12
2 pg, 33.48 KB

Filed order (Deputy Clerk: SL) Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties (Docket Entry No. [11]), these appeals are voluntarily dismissed. Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). The parties shall bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees on appeal. A copy of this order shall serve as and for the mandate of this court. [10695655] [17-56548, 1756684] (WL) [Entered: 12/19/2017 11:21 AM]

 </s> Case: 2:15-cv-298 As of: 10/20/2017 06:03 PM PDT 1 of 26
ACCO,(JCx),APPEAL,CLOSED,DISCOVERY,MANADR,PROTORD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:15−cv−00298−DDP−JC

Haley Videckis et al v. Pepperdine University Assigned to: Judge Dean D. Pregerson Referred to: Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian

Case in other court:

9th CCA, 17−56548

Los Angeles County Superior Court, SC123498

Cause: 28:1441 Notice of Removal − Civil Rights Act

Plaintiff

Date Filed: 01/14/2015 Date Terminated: 09/11/2017 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 448 Civil Rights: Education Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Haley Videckis

represented by Jayesh Patel Zuber Lawler and Del Duca LLP 777 S. Figueroa St., 37th Flr. Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−596−5620 Fax: 213−596−5621 Email: jpatel@zuberlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeremy J Gray ZuberLawler and Del Duca LLP 777 South Figueroa Street 37th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−596−5620 Fax: 213−596−5621 Email: jgray@zuberlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Agnes Markarian Sullivan Zuber Lawler and Del Duca LLP 777 South Figueroa Street 37th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−596−5620 Fax: 213−596−5621 Email: asullivan@zuberlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alan B Newman Alan Burton Newman APC 4344 Promenade Way Suite 104 Marina Del Rey, CA 90292−6281 310−306−4339 Fax: 310 821 1883 Email: abn222@gmail.com TERMINATED: 03/03/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey J Zuber Zuber Lawler and Del Duca LLP 777 South Figueroa Street 37th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017−5835 213−596−5620 Fax: 213−596−5621 Email: jzuber@zuberlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith A Smith

Case: 2:15-cv-298 As of: 10/20/2017 06:03 PM PDT 2 of 26

Zuber Lawler and Del Duca LLP 777 South Figueroa Street 37th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−596−5620 Fax: 310−596−5621 Email: msmith@zuberlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert W Dickerson , Jr Zuber Lawler and Del Duca LLP 777 S. Figueroa Street 37th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−596−5620 Fax: 213−596−5621 Email: rdickerson@zuberlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Layana White

represented by Jayesh Patel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeremy J Gray (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Agnes Markarian Sullivan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alan B Newman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/03/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey J Zuber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meredith A Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert W Dickerson , Jr (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Ryan Weisenberg an individual TERMINATED: 02/05/2015

represented by Paula Tripp Victor Anderson McPharlin and Conners LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90017−3623 213−688−0080 Fax: 213−622−7594 Email: ptv@amclaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter B Rustin

Case: 2:15-cv-298 As of: 10/20/2017 06:03 PM PDT 3 of 26

Anderson McPharlin and Conners LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90017−3623 213−688−0080 Fax: 213−622−7594 Email: pbr@amclaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Pepperdine University a corporation doing business in California

represented by Paula Tripp Victor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter B Rustin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Robert Hunt Anderson McPharlin and Conners LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213−688−0080 Fax: 213−622−7594 Email: drh@amclaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Richard Sugden Call and Jensen PC 610 Newport Center Drive Suite 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949−717−3000 Fax: 949−717−3100 Email: dsugden@calljensen.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric A Schneider Anderson McPharlin and Conners LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90017−3623 213−688−0080 Fax: 213−622−7594 Email: eas@amclaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/14/2015
01/14/2015 01/14/2015 01/14/2015

# Docket Text
1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Los Angeles County Superior Court, case number SC123498 Receipt No: 0973−15053919 − Fee: $400, filed by Defendants Pepperdine University, Ryan Weisenberg. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor, # 2 Exhibit A − Complaint for Damages, # 3 Exhibit B − Summonses) (Attorney Paula Tripp Victor added to party Pepperdine University(pty:dft), Attorney Paula Tripp Victor added to party Ryan Weisenberg(pty:dft))(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendants Pepperdine University, Ryan Weisenberg. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Defendants Pepperdine University, Ryan Weisenberg, (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
4 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Defendants Pepperdine University, Ryan Weisenberg (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 01/14/2015)

Case: 2:15-cv-298 As of: 10/20/2017 06:03 PM PDT 4 of 26

01/14/2015 01/14/2015 01/14/2015 01/14/2015
01/16/2015
01/20/2015 01/20/2015 02/05/2015 02/18/2015 02/18/2015
02/18/2015
02/19/2015
02/20/2015

CONFORMED FILED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Pepperdine University, Ryan Weisenberg., filed by plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (FILED IN STATE COURT ON 12/10/2014 SUBMITTED ATTACHED EXHIBIT A) (ghap) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Dean D. Pregerson and Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian. (ghap) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
6 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT−DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (ghap) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
7 OF SERVICE filed by Defendants Pepperdine University, Ryan Weisenberg, re Notice to Parties of Court−Directed ADR Program (ADR−8) 6 , Civil Cover Sheet (CV−71) 2 , Notice of Assignment to United States Judges(CV−18) 5 , Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), 1 , Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties 3 , Corporate Disclosure Statement 4 Notice of Removal to Adverse Parties served on January 14, 2015. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
8 STIPULATION Extending Time to Answer the complaint as to Pepperdine University answer now due 2/20/2015; Ryan Weisenberg answer now due 2/20/2015, re Complaint − (Discovery) filed by Defendants Pepperdine University; Ryan Weisenberg. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Extending Time for Defendants to Respond to Initial Complaint by Not More than 30 Days)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
9 ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT BY NOTMORE THAN 30 DAYS TO FEBRUARY 20, 2015 8 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson (lc) (Entered: 01/20/2015)
10 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: This action has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Counsel are referred to the courts website for additional information. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR SPECIFIC FILING REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS) (jc) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
11 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendant Pepperdine University amending Complaint − (Discovery) JURY DEMAND, filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White (Newman, Alan) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
12 REQUEST TO SUBSTITUTE ATTORNEY Jeffrey J. Zuber in place of attorney Alan B. Newman filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Newman, Alan) Modified on 2/23/2015 (lc).(STRICKEN PER 2/23/15 MINUTES) (Entered: 02/18/2015)
13 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Notice of Motion and Motion of Defendant Pepperdine University to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(B)(6); Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. Motion set for hearing on 3/30/2015 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Pepperdine University's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 02/18/2015)
14 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Notice of Motion and Motion of Defendant Pepperdine University to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(B)(6); Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof 13 Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Pepperdine Universitys Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 02/18/2015)
15 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: REQUEST TO SUBSTITUTE ATTORNEY Jeffrey J. Zuber in place of attorney Alan B. Newman 12 . The following error(s) was found: Title page is missing. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (shb) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
16 REQUEST for Order for Approval of Substitution of Attorneys filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Request of Approval of

Case: 2:15-cv-298 As of: 10/20/2017 06:03 PM PDT 5 of 26

02/23/2015
02/23/2015 03/03/2015 03/09/2015 03/16/2015
03/30/2015 04/08/2015 04/15/2015 04/16/2015
05/06/2015 05/19/2015

Substitution)(Newman, Alan) Modified on 2/23/2015 (lc). (STRICKEN PER 2/23/15 MINUTES) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
17 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED that the document entitled REQUEST FOR ORDER FOR APPROVAL OF SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEYS, filed on February 20, 2015, docket number 16 was filed incorrectly by attaching the documents in reverse order AND by not sending a PDF of the document and a Word or WordPerfect copy of the [proposed] order to the chambers email address and therefore ordered STRICKEN from the docket. Counsel shall review the electronic filing procedures and re−file the document forthwith. To assist counsel, the email address for Judge Pregersons chambers is: ddp_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov IN ADDITION, docket number 12 is also STRICKEN for the reasons setforth in the NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES (DOCKET NUMBER 15) (lc) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
18 REQUEST TO SUBSTITUTE ATTORNEY Jeffrey J. Zuber in place of attorney Alan Newman filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Newman, Alan) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
19 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: granting 18 Request to Substitute Attorney Jeffrey J Zuber for Haley in place and instead of AlanBurton Newman on behalf plaintiffs HaleyVideckis and Layana White. (lc) (Entered: 03/03/2015)
20 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Notice of Motion and Motion of Defendant Pepperdine University to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(B)(6); Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof 13 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Attorney Jeremy J Gray added to party Haley Videckis(pty:pla), Attorney Jeremy J Gray added to party Layana White(pty:pla))(Gray, Jeremy) (Entered: 03/09/2015)
21 REPLY in support of MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Notice of Motion and Motion of Defendant Pepperdine University to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(B)(6); Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof 13 filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor in Support of Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 03/16/2015)
22 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: REMOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 13 . Court hears oral argument and takes the matter under submission. Court Reporter: Maria Bustillos. (lc) (Entered: 03/30/2015)
23 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER SCHEDULING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE BEFORE JUDGE DEAN D. PREGERSON ON APRIL 15, 2015 10:00 AM (SEE DOCUMENT FOR SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS ) by Judge Dean D. Pregerson (lc) (Entered: 04/08/2015)
24 MINUTES OF LOCAL RULE 16−14.4 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Settlement Conference held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Court conducts settlement conference without reaching a resolution. Court Reporter: None Present. (shb) (Entered: 04/16/2015)
25 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS 13 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs invasion of privacy claim − insofar as it is based on the requests for Plaintiffs medical records − with LEAVE TO AMEND. The Court further DISMISSES the Title IX claim with LEAVE TO AMEND. Any amended complaint should be filed within 20 days of the date of this order. Pepperdine's Motion is otherwise DENIED. (lc). Modified on 4/16/2015 (lc). Modified on 4/16/2015 (lc). (Entered: 04/16/2015)
26 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendant Pepperdine University amending Amended Complaint/Petition 11 , filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White (Gray, Jeremy) (Entered: 05/06/2015)
27 STIPULATION to Amend Amended Complaint/Petition 26 filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Allowing Plaintiffs to File a

Case: 2:15-cv-298 As of: 10/20/2017 06:03 PM PDT 6 of 26

05/21/2015
05/26/2015 05/26/2015 05/26/2015 05/27/2015 06/09/2015
06/29/2015 07/06/2015 07/06/2015 07/16/2015 07/17/2015 08/24/2015

Third Amended Complaint)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 05/19/2015)
28 ORDER ALLOWING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 27 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Defendant need not respond to the Second Amended Complaint that was filed on May 6, 2015. Plaintiffs may file a Third Amended Complaint on or before May 26, 2015. Defendant shall file its response to the Third Amended Complaint on or before June 9, 2015. (lc) Modified on 5/21/2015 (lc). (Entered: 05/21/2015)
29 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendant Pepperdine University amending Amended Complaint/Petition 26 , Amended Complaint/Petition 11 , Complaint − (Discovery), filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White (Gray, Jeremy) Modified on 5/27/2015 (lc). (STRICKEN PER 5/27/15 MINUTES) (Entered: 05/26/2015)
30 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. correcting Amended Complaint/Petition 29 (Gray, Jeremy) (Entered: 05/26/2015)
31 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendant Pepperdine University amending Amended Complaint/Petition 26 , Amended Complaint/Petition 29 , Amended Complaint/Petition 11 , Complaint − (Discovery), filed by Plaintiff Haley Videckis, Layana White (Gray, Jeremy) (Entered: 05/26/2015)
32 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED that the document entitled THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, filed on May 26, 2015, docket number 29 was filed incorrectly and therefore ordered STRICKEN from the docket. The Court notes the THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT was filed correctly on docket number 31. (lc) (Entered: 05/27/2015)
33 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Third, Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action of the Third Amended Complaint and Prayer for Prejudgment Interest Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. Motion set for hearing on 7/20/2015 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Pepperdine Universitys Motion to Dismiss Third, Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action of the Third Amended Complaint and Prayer for Prejudgment Interest)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 06/09/2015)
34 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Dismiss Third, Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action of the Third Amended Complaint and Prayer for Prejudgment Interest Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) 33 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Gray, Jeremy) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
35 REPLY MOTION to Dismiss Third, Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action of the Third Amended Complaint and Prayer for Prejudgment Interest Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) 33 filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
36 REPLY MOTION to Dismiss Third, Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action of the Third Amended Complaint and Prayer for Prejudgment Interest Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) 33 [Amended] filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 07/06/2015)
37 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED, on the Court's own motion, the MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD, FOURTH AND FIFTH CAUSES OF ACTION OF THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOCKET NUMBER 33) is hereby continued from July 20, 2015 to Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. (shb) (Entered: 07/16/2015)
38 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED, on the Court's own motion, the MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD, FOURTH AND FIFTH CAUSES OF ACTION OF THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 33 is hereby continued from July 23,2015 to August 24, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. (lc) (Entered: 07/17/2015)
39 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: OTION TO DISMISS THIRD, FOURTH AND FIFTH CAUSES OF ACTION OF THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 33 .Court hears oral argument and takes the matter under submission.Court Reporter: Maria Bustillos. (lc) (Entered: 08/24/2015)

Case: 2:15-cv-298 As of: 10/20/2017 06:03 PM PDT 7 of 26

12/14/2015 12/15/2015 12/16/2015 12/28/2015 12/29/2015
03/03/2016 03/10/2016 03/10/2016
05/06/2016
05/09/2016

40 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITYS MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD, FOURTH, AND FIFTH CAUSES OF ACTION OF THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 33 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (lc). Modified on 12/14/2015 (lc). (Entered: 12/14/2015)
41 AMENDED ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITYS MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD, FOURTH, AND FIFTH CAUSES OF ACTION OF THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT [AMENDED AS TO TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN ORIGINAL CAPTION ONLY] 33 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (lc). Modified on 12/15/2015 (lc). (Entered: 12/15/2015)
42 NOTICE of Change of Lead Counsel Haley Videckis, Layana White, (Gray, Jeremy) (Entered: 12/16/2015)
43 ANSWER to Amended Complaint/Petition, 31 with JURY DEMAND Defendant Pepperdine University's Answer to Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint; Demand for Jury Trial filed by defendant Pepperdine University.(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 12/28/2015)
44 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: The Scheduling Conference is set for 3/10/2016 at 03:00 PM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. This matter is set for a scheduling conference in Courtroom 3, before the Honorable Dean D. Pregerson, located at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. The conference will be held pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b). Lead trial counsel shall attend the scheduling conference. (See order for further details). (shb) (Entered: 12/29/2015)
45 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; estimated length of trial 12 −15 days, filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Gray, Jeremy) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
46 MINUTES OF Scheduling Conference held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Court and counsel confer re case status. Court sets trial dates. (Refer to the SCHEDULING ORDER to be issued hereafter.) Court Reporter: Maria Bustillos. (vv) (Entered: 03/10/2016)
47 SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b), the Court issues the following Order: LAST DAY TO JOIN OTHER PARTIES AND TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS: 11−30−16; FACT DISCOVERY CUT−OFF: 02−06−17; EXPERT DISCOVERY CUT−OFF: 03−27−17; LAST DAY TO HEARING MOTIONS: 04−03−17; FINAL PRE TRIAL CONFERENCE: 05−08−17 at 11:00 a.m.; 12 DAY JURY TRIAL: 05−23−17 at 9:00 a.m. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (vv) (Entered: 03/10/2016)
48 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Produce UnRedacted Copies of the Notes From Student Interviews Generated in Connection With The Title IX Investigation of Plaintiffs' Claims filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting UnOpposed Ex Parte Application By Plaintiffs For An Order That Defendant Pepperdine University Produce UnRedacted Copies of The Notes From Studen Interviews Generated in Connection with The Title IX Investigation of Plaintiffs' Claims)(Gray, Jeremy) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
49 ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION BY PLAINTIFFS HALEY VIDECKIS AND LAYANA WHITE FOR AN ORDER THAT DEFENDANT PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY PRODUCE UNREDACTED COPIES OF THE NOTES FROM STUDENT INTERVIEWS GENERATED IN CONNECTION WITH THE TITLE IX INVESTIGATION OF PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS 48 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Pepperdine University is Ordered produce to Plaintiffs in this action unredacted copies of all notes of any interviews with students of Pepperdine which were conducted in connection with Pepperdines Title IX Investigation into the claims made by Haley Videckis and Layana White. Pepperdine is Ordered to produce all such notes on or before May 13, 2016. The parties to this action are further ordered to keep these interview notes confidential, and not to disclose them to any non−party except as may be directed in a subsequent Protective Order. (lc) (Entered: 05/10/2016)

Case: 2:15-cv-298 As of: 10/20/2017 06:03 PM PDT 8 of 26

06/28/2016 10/31/2016
02/24/2017 02/24/2017 03/21/2017 03/27/2017
04/06/2017 04/06/2017
04/07/2017 04/07/2017 04/07/2017

50 NOTICE of Unavailability of Counsel filed by defendant Pepperdine University. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 06/28/2016)
51 NOTICE TO PARTIES by District Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Effective November 7, 2016, Judge Pregerson will be located at the 1st Street Courthouse, COURTROOM 9C on the 9th floor, located at 350 W. 1st Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. All Court appearances shall be made in Courtroom 9C of the 1st Street Courthouse, and all mandatory chambers copies shall be hand delivered to the judge's mail box outside the Clerk's Office on the 4th floor of the 1st Street Courthouse. The location for filing civil documents in paper format exempted from electronic filing and for viewing case files and other records services remains at the United States Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Room G−8, Los Angeles, California 90012. The location for filing criminal documents in paper format exempted from electronic filing remains at Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street, Room 178, Los Angeles, California 90012. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (rrp) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 10/31/2016)
52 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Jayesh Patel counsel for Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. Adding Jayesh Patel as counsel of record for Plaintiffs HALEY VIDECKIS and LAYANA WHITE for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis and Layana White. (Attorney Jayesh Patel added to party Haley Videckis(pty:pla), Attorney Jayesh Patel added to party Layana White(pty:pla))(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 02/24/2017)
53 Joint STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White.(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 02/24/2017)
54 PROTECTIVE ORDER [CHANGES MADE BY COURT TO PARAGRAPHS 1, 3, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.4, 7.1, 7.3.3, 8.2, 11.3] by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian re Stipulation for Protective Order 53 . See order for details. (hr) (Entered: 03/22/2017)
55 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Robert W Dickerson, Jr counsel for Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. Adding Robert W. Dickerson Jr. as counsel of record for Plaintiffs Haley Videckis and Layana White for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis and Layana White. (Attorney Robert W Dickerson, Jr added to party Haley Videckis(pty:pla), Attorney Robert W Dickerson, Jr added to party Layana White(pty:pla))(Dickerson, Robert) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
56 Joint STIPULATION to Extend Discovery Cut−Off Date to April 24, 2017 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White.(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 04/06/2017)
57 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Stipulation to Extend Discovery Cut−Off Date 56 . The following error(s) was found: Missing Proposed order which should have been not submitted as separate attachment. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (lc) (Entered: 04/06/2017)
58 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Eric A Schneider counsel for Defendant Pepperdine University. Adding Eric A. Schneider as counsel of record for Pepperdine University for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by defendant Pepperdine University. (Attorney Eric A Schneider added to party Pepperdine University(pty:dft))(Schneider, Eric) (Entered: 04/07/2017)
59 RESPONSE BY THE COURT TO NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES IN ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS RE: Stipulation to Extend Discovery Cut−Off Date 56 by Clerk of Court. Prepare a formal document: Notice of Lodging, to be docketed only under its specific event: Notice of Lodging; to which 2) the separate formal proposed order is submitted as a separate attachment thereto. (lc) (Entered: 04/07/2017)
60 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Mental Examinations of Plaintiffs filed by defendant Pepperdine University. Motion set for hearing on 4/25/2017 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 04/07/2017)

Case: 2:15-cv-298 As of: 10/20/2017 06:03 PM PDT 9 of 26

04/07/2017 04/08/2017 04/10/2017 04/13/2017
04/14/2017 04/14/2017
04/17/2017 04/17/2017 04/18/2017

61 JOINT STIPULATION to MOTION to Compel Mental Examinations of Plaintiffs 60 JOINT STIPULATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 37−2.1 REGARDING DEFENDANT PEPPERDINES MOTION TO COMPEL MENTAL EXAMINATIONS OF PLAINTIFFS; DECLARATION/EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT THEREOF filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 04/07/2017)
62 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Deposition of Andrew Benton filed by Plaintiff Haley Videckis, Layana White. Motion set for hearing on 5/2/2017 at 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Jayesh Patel re Joint Stipulation re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Deposition of Andrew Benton, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor re Joint Stipulation re Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Deposition of Andrew Benton)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 04/08/2017)
63 NOTICE OF LODGING filed re Stipulation to Extend Discovery Cut−Off Date 56 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Joint Stipulation to Extend The Fact Discovery Cut−Off and Dates to Disclose Expert Witnesses)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 04/10/2017)
64 ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND FACT DISCOVERY CUT−OFF DATE ANDTO DISCLOSE EXPERT WITNESSES 56 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: The parties may take the depositions of those fact witnesses whose depositions were noticed on or before February 6, 2017 so long as those depositions are completed no later than April 28, 2017. The motions to compel (as specified )be filed and served by April 7, 2017 and may be heard on shortened time on April 24, 2017, or on a date thereafter convenient to this Court. Any supplemental memoranda in connections with the motions must be filed and served by April 18,2017. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR SPECIFICS). (lc) (Entered: 04/13/2017)
65 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) DENYING AS UNTIMELY PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF ANDREW BENTON (DOCKET NO. 62 ) by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian: Plaintiffs did not file their motion to compel Mr. Benton's deposition byApril 7, 2017. Instead, plaintiffs filed such motion a day late − on April 8, 2017. Accordingly,plaintiffs' motion to compel Mr. Benton's deposition is untimely and is denied as such. See order for details. (hr) (Entered: 04/14/2017)
66 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) (1) RE BRIEFING AND HEARING ON MOTION OF DEFENDANT PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY TO COMPEL MENTAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFFS (DOCKET NO. 60); AND (2) DIRECTING COUNSEL FORTHWITH TO MEET AND CONFER REGARDING SCHEDULING AND TO REPORT RESULTS OF SAME IN CONJUNCTION WITH SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDA by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian re: MOTION to Compel Mental Examinations of Plaintiffs 60 . Based upon the parties' joint stipulation to extend the fact discovery cut−off date and dates to disclose expert witnesses which was approved by the assigned District Judge on April 13, 2017 (Docket Nos. 56, 63, 64), and defendant Pepperdine University's notice of motion to compel mental examination of plaintiffs which was filed on April 7, 2017, the parties' supplemental memoranda in connection with the foregoing motion are due by April 18, 2017, and the hearing on the foregoing motion is set for April 25, 2017 at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom 20, United States Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. [C]ounsel are ordered forthwith to confer regarding scheduling of the mental examinations sought by defendant's motion and to report the results of the same to the Court in conjunction with the submission of the supplemental memoranda. See order for further details. (hr) (Entered: 04/14/2017)
67 Plaintiffs' Response to Magistrate Judge Jaqueline Chooljian's Plaintiff's Motion to Compel the Deposition of Andrew Benton re MOTION to Compel Deposition of Andrew Benton 62 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jayesh Patel, # 2 Exhibit 1)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 04/17/2017)
68 Joint STIPULATION to Continue Pre−Trial Dates from Today to Various Dates filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 04/17/2017)
69 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION to Compel Mental Examinations of Plaintiffs 60 Supplemental Memorandum of Law in support of Motion to Compel Mental

Case: 2:15-cv-298 As of: 10/20/2017 06:03 PM PDT 10 of 26

04/18/2017 04/20/2017 04/24/2017
04/24/2017 04/24/2017 04/24/2017 04/24/2017 04/24/2017 04/24/2017 04/24/2017

Examinations of Plaintiffs and Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 04/18/2017)
70 OPPOSITION to MOTION to Compel Mental Examinations of Plaintiffs 60 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 04/18/2017)
71 ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE AND RELATED PRETRIAL DEADLINES 68 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson:: Contentions of Fact and Law, Joint Exhibit List, Witness Lists, Joint Statement of the Case, Jury Instructions, Final Pretrial Conference Order be filed by May 4, 2017; Expert discovery extended to May 16, 2017; Pretrial Conference continued to May 15, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. (lc) (Entered: 04/20/2017)
72 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE to Exclude Exclude The Expert Testimony Of Brian Barrio, Ryan Weisenberg, Jordan Smith, Trisha Raniewicz, Mallorie Winn, Steve Potts, Karina Herold, Tabatha Jones Jolivet, Mark Davis, Kevin WRight, Karissa Scherrer and Gary Green and Request for Daubert Hearing filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. Motion set for hearing on 5/15/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jayesh Patel re Motion in Limine No. 5, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Jayesh Patel, # 3 Proposed Order)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
73 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#7) to Exclude The Testimony Of Mr. Benton filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. Motion set for hearing on 5/15/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Jayesh Patel re Motion in Limine No. 7, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Jayesh Patel, # 3 Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Jayesh Patel, # 4 Exhibit 3 to Declaration of Jayesh Patel, # 5 Proposed Order)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
74 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Exclude The Expert Testimony Of Jody Shipper and Request for Daubert Hearing filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. Motion set for hearing on 5/15/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jayesh Patel re MIL No. 4, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Jayesh Patel, # 3 Proposed Order)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
75 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude The Expert Testimony of Richard J. Mouw and Request for Daubert Hearing filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. Motion set for hearing on 5/15/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration lf Jayesh Patel re MIL No. 2, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Jayesh Patel, # 3 Proposed Order)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
76 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#3) to Exclude The Expert Testimony Of Chris Schoemann and Request for Daubert Hearing filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. Motion set for hearing on 5/15/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Of Jayesh Patel re MIL No. 3, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Jayesh Patel, # 3 Proposed Order)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
77 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Exclude The Expert Testimony Of M. Dianne Murphy and Request for Daubert Hearing filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. Motion set for hearing on 5/15/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Of Jayesh Patel re MIL No. 4, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Jayesh Patel, # 3 Proposed Order)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
78 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#6) to Exclude Evidence Relating to Disciplinary Actions Taken Against Plaintiffs While In School in Arizona filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. Motion set for hearing on 5/15/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jayesh Patel re MIL No. 6, # 2 Declaration 1 to Declaration of Jayesh Patel, # 3 Proposed Order)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
79 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Exclude Evidence relating to the atmosphere or environment at Pepperdine regarding LGBT issues filed by defendant Pepperdine University. Motion set for hearing on 5/15/2017 at 10:00 AM

Case: 2:15-cv-298 As of: 10/20/2017 06:03 PM PDT 11 of 26

04/24/2017 04/24/2017 04/24/2017 04/24/2017 04/24/2017 04/24/2017 04/24/2017 04/24/2017 04/24/2017 04/24/2017 04/24/2017

before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
80 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#3) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence of Pepperdine University Donors Giving or Withholding Money Due to Pepperdine's Position Regarding LGBT Groups or Issues filed by defendant Pepperdine University. Motion set for hearing on 5/15/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
81 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence of Pepperdine University's Denial of Applications for a Formal LGBT Group and Skeptics Club on Campus filed by defendant Pepperdine University. Motion set for hearing on 5/15/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
82 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Exclude Censorship of Performances or Removal of Flyers on Campus filed by defendant Pepperdine University. Motion set for hearing on 5/15/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
83 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#5) to Exclude Testimony/Declarations from Elijah Sims and Testimony about Him filed by defendant Pepperdine University. Motion set for hearing on 5/15/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
84 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#6) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence of Comments Made and Documents Authored by Pepperdine University's President Andrew Benton filed by defendant Pepperdine University. Motion set for hearing on 5/15/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
85 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#7) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence of Coach Ryan Weisenberg's Disciplinary Actions Relating to Former Pepperdine Basketball Player Erica Chandler filed by defendant Pepperdine University. Motion set for hearing on 5/15/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
86 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#8) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence of Karissa Scherer Taking Anne Stone's Cell Phone and Blocking Phone Numbers of Plaintiffs filed by defendant Pepperdine University. Motion set for hearing on 5/15/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
87 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#9) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence of the Reasons for Anne Stone's Departure from Pepperdine filed by defendant Pepperdine University. Motion set for hearing on 5/15/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
88 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#10) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence of Adi Conlogue's Comments to Plaintiffs filed by defendant Pepperdine University. Motion set for hearing on 5/15/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
89 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#11) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence of any General Opinions or Reputation of Ryan Weisenberg within the Basketball Community filed by defendant Pepperdine University. Motion set for hearing on 5/15/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
90 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#12) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence of Karissa Scherer Changing the Sign in Sheet at the Athletic Training Center filed by defendant Pepperdine University. Motion set for hearing on 5/15/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed

Case: 2:15-cv-298 As of: 10/20/2017 06:03 PM PDT 12 of 26

04/24/2017 04/24/2017 04/25/2017
04/25/2017
04/26/2017 04/27/2017 04/28/2017 05/01/2017

Order)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
91 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#13) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence Relating to "Champions of Respect" filed by defendant Pepperdine University. Motion set for hearing on 5/15/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 13 Part 1, # 2 Exhibit 13 Part 2, # 3 Proposed Order)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
92 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#14) to Exclude Testimony from Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Dr. Elliot D. Felman filed by defendant Pepperdine University. Motion set for hearing on 5/15/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
93 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. correcting MOTION IN LIMINE (#3) to Exclude The Expert Testimony Of Chris Schoemann and Request for Daubert Hearing 76 , MOTION IN LIMINE (#6) to Exclude Evidence Relating to Disciplinary Actions Taken Against Plaintiffs While In School in Arizona 78 , MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Exclude The Expert Testimony Of M. Dianne Murphy and Request for Daubert Hearing 77 , MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude The Expert Testimony of Richard J. Mouw and Request for Daubert Hearing 75 , MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Exclude The Expert Testimony Of Jody Shipper and Request for Daubert Hearing 74 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 to Notice of Errata)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
94 MINUTES OF HEARING ON DEFENDANT PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY'S MOTION TO COMPEL MENTAL EXAMINATIONS OF PLAINTIFFS ("DEFENDANT'S MOTION") (DOCKET NO. 60 ); ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO APPEAR FOR MENTAL EXAMINATIONS held before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian: Case called. The Court stated its tentative on the record. The Court conferred with and heard argument from counsel. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court granted Defendant's Motion as detailed below. 1. Plaintiff Haley Videckis and Plaintiff Layana White shall appear on one or more dates no later than May 12, 2017, at a location in Los Angeles County to be agreed upon by the parties, at a time to be agreed upon by the parties, to undergo standard forensic psychiatric diagnostic examinations, including written psychological tests (which may include the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory−2, the Personality Assessment Inventory, and the Rorschach Inkblot Test) and a psychiatric interview (which may include a complete pertinent history and a mental status examination). (See order for further details) Tape #: C/S 04/25/17. (hr) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
95 STIPULATION for Leave to For Each Party to File More than 5 Motions in Limine Stipulation to Allow Filing of Motions in Limine in Excess of 5 Motions and to Deem Filed Those Motions in Limine Filed by the Parties on April 24, 2017 filed by defendant Pepperdine University. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Parties Request to File More Than 5 Motons in Limine Each)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 04/26/2017)
96 ORDER GRANTING PARTIES REQUEST TO FILE MORE THAN 5 MOTIONS IN LIMINE EACH by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, re Stipulation for Leave 95 . The Parties are permitted to file more than five Motions in Limine per party. The Motions in Limine filed by Plaintiffs and by Pepperdine on April 24, 2017, are hereby accepted and deemed filed as of April 24, 2017. (smo) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
97 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Extend The Date By Which Motion to Compel Deposition of Andrew Benton May be Heard filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Meredith A. Smith, # 2 Proposed Order) (Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
98 OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Extend The Date By Which Motion to Compel Deposition of Andrew Benton May be Heard 97 Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Order to Extend the Date by Which Motion to Compel Deposition of Andrew Benton May Be Heard filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 05/01/2017)

Case: 2:15-cv-298 As of: 10/20/2017 06:03 PM PDT 13 of 26

05/01/2017 05/02/2017 05/04/2017 05/04/2017 05/11/2017 05/16/2017
05/18/2017
05/22/2017 05/22/2017

99 STIPULATION for Order Temporarily Staying All Pretrial Deadlines filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Agnes M. Sullivan, # 2 Proposed Order)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 05/01/2017)
100 ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION TO TEMPORARILY STAY ALL PRETRIAL DATES by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, re Stipulation for Order 99 . The Court hereby temporarily stays all pre−trial dates through June 2, 2017, the parties are to file new proposed dates on or before that deadline. (smo) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
101 ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION 97 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: The date by which a motion to compel the deposition of Mr. Andrew Benton may be heard is hereby extended, such that Magistrate Judge Chooljian has the ability to hear plaintiffs' motion to compel. IT IS SO ORDERED. (jy) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
102 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney David Richard Sugden counsel for Defendant Pepperdine University. Adding David R. Sugden as counsel of record for Pepperdine University for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Attorney David Richard Sugden added to party Pepperdine University(pty:dft))(Sugden, David) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
103 STIPULATION to Continue Trial Date and Trial−Related Deadlines Pursuant to Court Order of May 2, 2017 from May 23, 2017 to August 1, 2017 Re: Order,, Staying Case,, Terminate Deadlines and Hearings, 100 filed by defendant Pepperdine University. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Regarding New Trial Date and Other Trial−Related Dates and Deadlines)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 05/11/2017)
104 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for Extend The Date By Which Motion to Compel Deposition of Andrew Benton May be Heard 97 Supplemental Memorandum of Defendant Pepperdine University in Opposition to Motion to Compel Deposition of Andrew Benton; Declarations of Paula Victor, Ryan Weisenberg and Steve Potts and Exhibits in Support Thereof filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor in Support of Pepperdine's Supplemental Memorandum inOpposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Deposition of Andrew Benton, # 2 Declaration of Ryan Weisenberg in Support of Pepperdine's Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Compel Deposition of Andrew Benton, # 3 Declaration of Steve Potts in Support of Pepperdine's Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Compel Deposition of Andrew Benton)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 05/16/2017)
105 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) DIRECTING PARTIES TO CONFER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF ANDREW BENTON AND TO FILE JOINT STATUS REPORT/STIPULATION by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian: On May 5, 2017, the Clerk, at the Court's direction and in response to an inquiry from plaintiffs' counsel regarding the matter, advised plaintiffs' counsel that in light of the Stay Order, the incomplete briefing on Plaintiffs' Motion, and the substance of the briefs filed in connection with the pending motion in limine regarding Andrew Benton's testimony that were filed after the denial of Plaintiffs' Motion: (1) plaintiffs' counsel should confer with opposing counsel; (2) it was the Court's preference that counsel thereafter submit a stipulation regarding the foregoing matters for the Court's consideration. To date, the parties have not submitted any such stipulation. The Court has, however, received defendants' Supplemental Memorandum and supporting documents opposing Plaintiffs' Motion which were filed on May 16, 2017 (collectively "Supplemental Memo"). (Docket No. 104). Confusingly, the Supplemental Memo reflects a hearing date of May 23, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. However, it is clear that this is a hearing date which has not been cleared with the Clerk, that no such hearing is scheduled, and that no hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion is currently on calendar. In light of the foregoing, and so as to comport with and be consistent with the Stay Order, the parties are directed to confer and to file a joint status report or stipulation regarding the foregoing matters relating to Plaintiffs' Motion on or before June 2, 2017. (See order for further details.) (hr) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
106 STIPULATION for New Trial on July 18, 2017 filed by defendant Pepperdine University. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Regarding New Trial Date and Other Trial−Related Dates and Deadlines)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
107 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report Re Motion to Compel Deposition of Andrew Benton filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Victor, Paula) (Entered:

Case: 2:15-cv-298 As of: 10/20/2017 06:03 PM PDT 14 of 26

05/23/2017
05/23/2017 05/23/2017 05/30/2017 05/30/2017 05/30/2017 05/30/2017 05/30/2017
05/30/2017

05/22/2017)
108 MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) REGARDING SCHEDULING RELATIVE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF ANDREW BENTON by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian: Having reviewed the parties' Joint Status Report Re Motion to Compel Deposition of Andrew Benton, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs shall file any Supplemental Memorandum by not later than May 23, 2017. 2. Defendant shall file any Surreply Memorandum by not later than May 25, 2017 at 12:00 p.m. 2. Absent further order of the Court, the hearing on plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Deposition of Andrew Benton is scheduled for May 30, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. However, as the Magistrate Judge is on criminal duty that date, instead of the Courts regular courtroom, the hearing will take place in the criminal duty courtroom: Courtroom 341, Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012−1565. (hr) (Entered: 05/23/2017)
109 ORDER REGARDING NEW TRIAL DATE AND OTHER TRIAL−RELATED DATES AND DEADLINES 106 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Exhibit List due by 7/6/2017., Witness List due by 7/6/2017., Final Pretrial Conference set for 7/10/2017 11:00 AM Jury Trial set for 7/18/2017 09:00 AM. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR OTHER SPECIFIC DEADLINES AND EXPERT DEADLINES ). (lc) (Entered: 05/23/2017)
110 MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion to Compel Deposition of Andrew K. Benton (Supplemental) filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 05/23/2017)
111 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Exclude The Expert Testimony Of Jody Shipper and Request for Daubert Hearing 74 Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude, or in the Alternative Limit, the Expert Testimony of Jody Shipper, and Request for Daubert Hearing filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Paula Tripp Victor in Support of Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 1)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
112 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude The Expert Testimony of Richard J. Mouw and Request for Daubert Hearing 75 Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 2 to Exclude, or in the Alternative Limit, the Expert Testimony of Richard J. Mouw, and Request for Daubert Hearing filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor in Support of Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 2)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
113 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION IN LIMINE (#3) to Exclude The Expert Testimony Of Chris Schoemann and Request for Daubert Hearing 76 filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor in Support of Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 3 to Exclude Expert Testimony of Chris Schoemann)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
114 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Exclude The Expert Testimony Of M. Dianne Murphy and Request for Daubert Hearing 77 Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude, or in the Alternative Limit, the Expert Testimony of M. Dianne Murphy, and Request for Daubert Hearing filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor in Support of Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 4 to Exclude Expert Testimony of Dianne Murphy)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
115 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION IN LIMINE to Exclude Exclude The Expert Testimony Of Brian Barrio, Ryan Weisenberg, Jordan Smith, Trisha Raniewicz, Mallorie Winn, Steve Potts, Karina Herold, Tabatha Jones Jolivet, Mark Davis, Kevin WRight, Karissa Scherrer and Gary Green a 72 Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 5 to Exclude, or in the Alternative Limit, the Expert Testimony of Brian Barrio, Ryan Weisenberg, Jordan Smith, Trisha Raniewicz, Mallorie Winn, Steve Potts, Karina Herold, Tabitha Jones Jolivet, Mark Davis, Kevin Wright, Karissa Scherer and Gary Green, and Request for Daubert Hearing filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
116 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION IN LIMINE (#6) to Exclude Evidence Relating to Disciplinary Actions Taken Against Plaintiffs While In School in Arizona

Case: 2:15-cv-298 As of: 10/20/2017 06:03 PM PDT 15 of 26

05/30/2017 05/30/2017 05/30/2017 05/30/2017 05/30/2017 05/30/2017 05/30/2017 05/30/2017 05/30/2017
05/30/2017

78 Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 6 to Exclude Evidence Relating to Disciplinary Actions Taken Against Plaintiffs While in School in Arizona filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor in Support of Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion In Limine No. 6)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
117 OPPOSITION to MOTION IN LIMINE (#7) to Exclude The Testimony Of Mr. Benton 73 Pepperdine's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 7 to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Andrew Benton filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
118 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION IN LIMINE (#7) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence of Coach Ryan Weisenberg's Disciplinary Actions Relating to Former Pepperdine Basketball Player Erica Chandler 85 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jayesh Patel In Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 7)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
119 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION IN LIMINE (#10) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence of Adi Conlogue's Comments to Plaintiffs 88 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Of Jayesh Patel in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 10, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Jayesh Patel, # 3 Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Jayesh Patel)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
120 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION IN LIMINE (#14) to Exclude Testimony from Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Dr. Elliot D. Felman 92 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Of Jayesh Patel in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 14, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Jayesh Patel)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
121 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION IN LIMINE (#9) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence of the Reasons for Anne Stone's Departure from Pepperdine 87 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Meredith A. Smith In Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 9, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Meredith A. Smith)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
122 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION IN LIMINE (#11) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence of any General Opinions or Reputation of Ryan Weisenberg within the Basketball Community 89 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
123 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION IN LIMINE (#12) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence of Karissa Scherer Changing the Sign in Sheet at the Athletic Training Center 90 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
124 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION IN LIMINE (#13) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence Relating to "Champions of Respect" 91 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jayesh Patel In Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion in Limine No. 13, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Jayesh Patel)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
125 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence of Pepperdine University's Denial of Applications for a Formal LGBT Group and Skeptics Club on Campus 81 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jayesh Patel in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 2, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Jayesh Patel, # 3 Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Jayesh Patel)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
126 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION IN LIMINE (#3) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence of Pepperdine University Donors Giving or Withholding Money Due to Pepperdine's Position Regarding LGBT Groups or Issues 80 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 05/30/2017)

Case: 2:15-cv-298 As of: 10/20/2017 06:03 PM PDT 16 of 26

05/30/2017 05/30/2017
05/30/2017 05/30/2017 05/30/2017 05/30/2017
05/31/2017 06/01/2017 06/01/2017 06/02/2017

127 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Exclude Censorship of Performances or Removal of Flyers on Campus 82 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jayesh Patel in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 4, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Jayesh Patel, # 3 Declaration 2 to Declaration of Jayesh Patel)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
128 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION IN LIMINE (#6) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence of Comments Made and Documents Authored by Pepperdine University's President Andrew Benton 84 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jayesh Patel in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 6, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Jayesh Patel, # 3 Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Jayesh Patel, # 4 Exhibit 3 to Declaration of Jayesh Patel, # 5 Declaration 4 to Declaration of Jayesh Patel)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
129 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION IN LIMINE (#8) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence of Karissa Scherer Taking Anne Stone's Cell Phone and Blocking Phone Numbers of Plaintiffs 86 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
130 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Exclude Evidence relating to the atmosphere or environment at Pepperdine regarding LGBT issues 79 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jayesh Patel in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 1, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Jayesh Patel, # 3 Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Jayesh Patel)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
131 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION IN LIMINE (#5) to Exclude Testimony/Declarations from Elijah Sims and Testimony about Him 83 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jayesh Patel in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 5, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Jayesh Patel, # 3 Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Jayesh Patel)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
132 MINUTES OF HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF ANDREW BENTON ("PLAINTIFFS' MOTION") (DOCKET NO. 62); ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION Discovery Hearing held before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian: The Court ordered the deposition in issue to take place within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order absent agreement of the parties to conduct such deposition on a later date or to refrain from conducting such deposition in light of certain pending motions in limine which are set for hearing before the United States District Judge and/or a potential appeal to the District Judge of the instant order. The Court noted that its ruling was without prejudice to reconsideration in the event the District Judge excluded certain evidence that is the anticipated subject of the deposition in issue. Tape #: C/S 05/30/17. (hr) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
133 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Plaintiff Haley Videckis, Layana White for Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Alicia Navarro at anavarro@zuberlaw.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court recorder. (Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
134 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Transcript Order Form (G−120), 133 . The following error(s) was found: A DELIVERY TYPE WAS NOT SELECTED (box d.). You must electronically refile the above referenced Request for Transcript in this case to correct this deficiency. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ls) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/01/2017)
135 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White for Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Alicia Navarro at anavarro@zuberlaw.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court recorder. (Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 06/01/2017)
136 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Defendant Pepperdine University for Court Smart (CS). Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court recorder. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 06/02/2017)

Case: 2:15-cv-298 As of: 10/20/2017 06:03 PM PDT 17 of 26

06/02/2017 06/02/2017
06/05/2017 06/05/2017 06/05/2017 06/05/2017 06/05/2017 06/05/2017 06/05/2017 06/05/2017 06/05/2017 06/05/2017 06/05/2017

137 STIPULATION for Hearing re Motions to Prohibit or Limit Testimony of Expert Witnesses filed by defendant Pepperdine University. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Regarding Filing and Hearing of Motions to Prohibit or Limit Testimony of Expert Witnesses)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
138 ORDER REGARDING FILING AND HEARING OF MOTIONS TO PROHIBIT OR LIMIT TESTIMONY OF EXPERT WITNESSES 137 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: 1. Pepperdines Motion to Exclude, or in the Alternative, to Limit the Testimony of Donna Lopiano and Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude, or in the Alternative, to Limit the Testimony of Ronald Roberts, Ph.D., may be heard on June 12, 2017 with the hearing on the Parties Motions in Limine. 2. The Motions identified above must be filed by 5:00 p.m. on June 6, 2017, oppositions must be filed by 12:00 noon on June 8, 2017, and any reply briefs must be filed by 12:00 noon on June 9, 2017. (lc) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
139 REPLY In Support MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Exclude The Expert Testimony Of Jody Shipper and Request for Daubert Hearing 74 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jayesh Patel re Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion In Limine No. 1)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
140 REPLY In Support MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude The Expert Testimony of Richard J. Mouw and Request for Daubert Hearing 75 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jayesh Patel re Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 2)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
141 REPLY In Support MOTION IN LIMINE (#3) to Exclude The Expert Testimony Of Chris Schoemann and Request for Daubert Hearing 76 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
142 REPLY In Support MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Exclude The Expert Testimony Of M. Dianne Murphy and Request for Daubert Hearing 77 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
143 REPLY In Support MOTION IN LIMINE to Exclude Exclude The Expert Testimony Of Brian Barrio, Ryan Weisenberg, Jordan Smith, Trisha Raniewicz, Mallorie Winn, Steve Potts, Karina Herold, Tabatha Jones Jolivet, Mark Davis, Kevin WRight, Karissa Scherrer and Gary Green a 72 filed by Plaintiff Layana White. (Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
144 REPLY In Support MOTION IN LIMINE (#6) to Exclude Evidence Relating to Disciplinary Actions Taken Against Plaintiffs While In School in Arizona 78 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
145 REPLY In Support MOTION IN LIMINE (#7) to Exclude The Testimony Of Mr. Benton 73 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Of Jayesh Patel re Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 7)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
146 REPLY in Support MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Exclude Evidence relating to the atmosphere or environment at Pepperdine regarding LGBT issues 79 and Evidentiary Objections and Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor in Support Thereof filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
147 REPLY in support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#2) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence of Pepperdine University's Denial of Applications for a Formal LGBT Group and Skeptics Club on Campus 81 and Evidentiary Objections and Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor in Support Thereof filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
148 REPLY in support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#3) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence of Pepperdine University Donors Giving or Withholding Money Due to Pepperdine's Position Regarding LGBT Groups or Issues 80 and Evidentiary Objections and Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor in Support Thereof filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
149 REPLY in support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#4) to Exclude Censorship of Performances or Removal of Flyers on Campus 82 and Evidentiary Objections and

Case: 2:15-cv-298 As of: 10/20/2017 06:03 PM PDT 18 of 26

06/05/2017 06/05/2017 06/05/2017 06/05/2017 06/05/2017 06/05/2017 06/05/2017 06/05/2017 06/05/2017 06/05/2017 06/05/2017 06/06/2017

Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor in Support Thereof filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
150 REPLY in support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#5) to Exclude Testimony/Declarations from Elijah Sims and Testimony about Him 83 and Evidentiary Objections and Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor in Support Thereof filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
151 REPLY in support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#6) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence of Comments Made and Documents Authored by Pepperdine University's President Andrew Benton 84 and Evidentiary Objections and Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor in Support Thereof filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
152 REPLY in support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#7) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence of Coach Ryan Weisenberg's Disciplinary Actions Relating to Former Pepperdine Basketball Player Erica Chandler 85 filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
153 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney David Robert Hunt counsel for Defendant Pepperdine University. Adding David Robert Hunt as counsel of record for Pepperdine University for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Attorney David Robert Hunt added to party Pepperdine University(pty:dft))(Hunt, David) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
154 REPLY in support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#8) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence of Karissa Scherer Taking Anne Stone's Cell Phone and Blocking Phone Numbers of Plaintiffs 86 and Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor and Exhibit in Support Thereof filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
155 REPLY in support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#9) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence of the Reasons for Anne Stone's Departure from Pepperdine 87 Evidentiary Objection; and Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor in Support Thereof filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
156 REPLY in support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#10) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence of Adi Conlogue's Comments to Plaintiffs 88 filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
157 REPLY in support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#11) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence of any General Opinions or Reputation of Ryan Weisenberg within the Basketball Community 89 filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
158 REPLY in support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#12) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence of Karissa Scherer Changing the Sign in Sheet at the Athletic Training Center 90 filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
159 REPLY in support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#13) to Exclude Testimony and/or Evidence Relating to "Champions of Respect" 91 and Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor and Exhibit in Support Thereof filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
160 REPLY in support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#14) to Exclude Testimony from Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Dr. Elliot D. Felman 92 and Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor and Exhibit in Support Thereof filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
161 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE to Exclude testimony of plaintiffs' rebuttal expert Donna A. Lopiano Notice of Motion and Motion to Limit Testimony of Plaintiff Rebuttal Expert Donna A. Lopiano; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. Motion set for hearing on 6/12/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 06/06/2017)

Case: 2:15-cv-298 As of: 10/20/2017 06:03 PM PDT 19 of 26

06/06/2017 06/06/2017 06/07/2017 06/07/2017
06/07/2017 06/08/2017
06/08/2017
06/08/2017 06/08/2017 06/09/2017

162 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE 8 to Exclude The Expert Testimony of Dr. Ronald H. Roberts filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. Motion set for hearing on 6/12/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jayesh Patel in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 8, # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Jayesh Patel, # 3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Jayesh Patel, # 4 Proposed Order)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 06/06/2017)
163 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for to limit testimony of plaintiffs' rebuttal expert Donna A. Lopiano [Proposed] Order Granting Pepperdine's Motion to Limit Testimony of Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Donna A. Lopianio filed by defendant Pepperdine University. Motion set for hearing on 6/12/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 06/06/2017)
164 STIPULATION for Hearing re Discovery Hearing,,, 132 filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hunt, David) (Entered: 06/07/2017)
172 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 5/30/17 10:07 a.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: EXCEPTIONAL REPORTING SERVICES, phone number (361) 949−2988. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 6/28/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/10/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/5/2017. (ha) (Entered: 06/09/2017)
173 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 5/30/17 10:06 a.m. re Transcript 172 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (ha) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/09/2017)
165 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for to limit testimony of plaintiffs' rebuttal expert Donna A. Lopiano [Proposed] Order Granting Pepperdine's Motion to Limit Testimony of Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert Donna A. Lopianio 163 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jayesh Patel in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Pepperdine's Motion to Limit Testimony of Rebuttal Expert Donna A. Lopiano, # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Jayesh Patel, # 3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Jayesh Patel, # 4 Exhibit C to Declaration of Jayesh Patel, # 5 Exhibit D to Declaration of Jayesh Patel, # 6 Exhibit E to Declaration of Jayesh Patel, # 7 Declaration of Robert W. Dickerson in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion, # 8 Declaration of Donna Lopiano in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 15)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 06/08/2017)
166 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION IN LIMINE 8 to Exclude The Expert Testimony of Dr. Ronald H. Roberts 162 Pepperdines Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion in Limine No. 8 to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Dr. Ronald H. Roberts; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Attachments: SEALED DOCUMENT # 1 Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor in Support of Pepperdine's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 8, # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor, # 3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor, # 4 Exhibit C to Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor, # 5SEALED DOCUMENT Exhibit D to Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor, # 6SEALED DOCUMENT Exhibit E to Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor, # 7SEALED DOCUMENT Exhibit F to Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor, # 8SEALED DOCUMENT Exhibit G to Declaration of Paula Tripp Victor, # 9 Declaration of Mark I. Levy, M.D.)(Victor, Paula) Modified on 6/13/2017 (lc). (Entered: 06/08/2017)
167 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, re Stipulation for Hearing 164 is GRANTED. (pg) (Entered: 06/08/2017)
168 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED, on the Court's own motion, all matters set for hearing June 12, 2017 are hereby continued to June 14, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. 161 , 162 , 163 . (lc) Modified on 6/8/2017 (lc). (Entered: 06/08/2017)
169 REPLY in support of MOTION IN LIMINE to Exclude testimony of plaintiffs' rebuttal expert Donna A. Lopiano Notice of Motion and Motion to Limit Testimony of

Case: 2:15-cv-298 As of: 10/20/2017 06:03 PM PDT 20 of 26

06/09/2017 06/09/2017 06/09/2017 06/13/2017 06/14/2017 06/14/2017 06/19/2017
06/20/2017

Plaintiff Rebuttal Expert Donna A. Lopiano; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof 161 Reply of Defendant Pepperdine University in Support of Motion to Limit Testimony of Rebuttal Expert Donna Lopiano filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 06/09/2017)
170 REPLY In Support MOTION to Compel Deposition of Andrew Benton 62 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jayesh Patel in Support of Plaintiffs Haley Videckis and Layana White's Reply to Defendant Pepperdine University's Objections to Magistrate Judge Order Granting MOtion to Compel Deposition of Andrew Benton)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 06/09/2017)
171 REPLY In Support MOTION IN LIMINE 8 to Exclude The Expert Testimony of Dr. Ronald H. Roberts 162 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 06/09/2017)
174 EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for to Seal Confidential Documents Filed by Defendant Pepperdine filed by Plaintiff Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order) (Patel, Jayesh) Modified on 6/13/2017 (lc). Modified on 6/13/2017 (lc). Modified on 6/14/2017 (lc). (Entered: 06/09/2017)
175 ORDER RE EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SEAL IMPROPERLY FILED CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS OF PLAINTIFFS BY DEFENDANT PEPPERDINE by Judge Dean D. Pregerson (lc) Modified on 6/14/2017 (lc). (Entered: 06/13/2017)
176 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Agnes Markarian Sullivan counsel for Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. Adding Agnes M. Sullivan as counsel of record for Haley Videckis and Layana White for the reason indicated in the G−123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis and Layana White. (Attorney Agnes Markarian Sullivan added to party Haley Videckis(pty:pla), Attorney Agnes Markarian Sullivan added to party Layana White(pty:pla))(Sullivan, Agnes) (Entered: 06/14/2017)
177 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson:COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED, on the Court's own motion, all matters previously set for June 14, 2017 are hereby continued to June 19, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. (lc) (Entered: 06/14/2017)
180 MINUTES OF MOTIONS IN LIMINE HEARING held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: As reflected on the record, Defendant's Motion in Limine No. One, Two, Four, Ten and Twelve 79 , 81 , 82 , 88 , 90 are DENIED. Defendant's Motion in Limine Nos. 3, 5, 8, and 13 80 , 83 , 86 , 91 are RESERVED for trial. There shall be no mention of these issues without prior approval of the court. Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 6 is DENIED, with respect to the YouTube comments. The motion is RESERVED with respect to the 2004 letter. Plaintiffs shall not refer to the letter without prior approval of the court. Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 7 85 is GRANTED. Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 9 87 is GRANTED, in part. Plaintiff is precluded from asking Anne Stone about the reasons for her departure, absent Defendant opening the door. Stone is not precluded from testifying about other matters, subject to objections. Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 11 89 is GRANTED, subject to reopening for impeachment or other proper purpose. Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 14 92 is DENIED, without prejudice. Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 15 161 is RESERVED for trial.Testimony beyond the scope of the designation will be precluded. Defendant's Motion for Review of Magistrate Judge's Order 164 , 167 is DENIED. The Magistrate Judge did not clearly err. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine Nos. One, Two, Three, and Four 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 are GRANTED, in part. Witnesses may answer hypothetical questions, but shall not testify as to the ultimate issue in the case. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 5 72 is DENIED, subject to Defendant laying an appropriate foundation. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 6 78 is DENIED. The court will address these issues on a statement by statement basis, and Defendant shall not refer to them in opening argument. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 7 73 is DENIED as moot. Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine No. 8 162 is DENIED. Court Reporter: Phyllis Preston. (lc) (Entered: 06/23/2017)
178 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White for Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Alicia Navarro at anavarro@zuberlaw.com with any questions regarding this order. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court recorder. (Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 06/20/2017)

Case: 2:15-cv-298 As of: 10/20/2017 06:03 PM PDT 21 of 26

06/20/2017 06/27/2017 06/29/2017 06/30/2017
06/30/2017
07/06/2017 07/06/2017 07/06/2017 07/06/2017 07/06/2017 07/06/2017 07/07/2017 07/07/2017
07/07/2017 07/07/2017 07/07/2017 07/07/2017 07/07/2017 07/09/2017

179 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Defendant Pepperdine University for Court Reporter. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 06/20/2017)
181 STIPULATION to Clarify case title filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 06/27/2017)
182 STIPULATION to Reschedule Trial Related Deadlines filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hunt, David) (Entered: 06/29/2017)
183 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, GRANTING Stipulation to Clarify Case Title 181 . The Parties and the Court will refer to this matter during trial as Haley Videckis et al v. Pepperdine University, thus dropping former Defendant Ryan Weisenberg from the name of the case. (shb) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
184 ORDER REGARDING NEW TRIAL RELATED DEADLINES by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Based on the Stipulation of counsel for the Parties, and good cause appearing therefore, this Court orders as follows: Witness Lists and Exhibits Lists be filed by July 6, 2017; Final Pre−trial Conference Order be filed by July 6, 2017; Jury Instructions, Proposed Verdict, Statement of the Case, Trial Briefs be filed by July 6, 2017; Demonstrative evidence not listed on exhibit list be exchanged by counsel by July 6, 2017; Designation of testimony to be offered through depositions be exchanged by July 6, 2017; Contentions of Law and Fact be filed by July 6, 2017. (shb) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
185 Witness List filed by Defendant Pepperdine University.. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 07/06/2017)
186 MEMORANDUM of CONTENTIONS of FACT and LAW filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Hunt, David) (Entered: 07/06/2017)
187 STATEMENT (Joint Proposed) to be Read to the Jury filed by Defendant Pepperdine University (Hunt, David) (Entered: 07/06/2017)
188 JOINT Exhibit List filed by Defendant Pepperdine University.. (Hunt, David) (Entered: 07/06/2017)
189 STIPULATION to Reschedule New Trial Related Deadlines filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hunt, David) (Entered: 07/06/2017)
190 MEMORANDUM of CONTENTIONS of FACT and LAW filed by Plaintiffs' Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 07/06/2017)
191 AMENDED MEMORANDUM of CONTENTIONS of FACT and LAW filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Hunt, David) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
192 TEXT ONLY ENTRY by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. On the Court's own motion, the Court advances the time of the final pretrial conference, previously scheduled for 7/10/2017 at 11:00 AM. The Final Pretrial Conference is now set for Monday, 7/10/2017 at 8:30 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (smo) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
193 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS (Clean set) filed by Defendant Pepperdine University.. (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
194 TRIAL BRIEF filed by Defendant Pepperdine University.. (Hunt, David) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
195 PROPOSED JURY VERDICT filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
196 Proposed Voir Dire Questions filed by Plaintiffs (Joint) Haley Videckis, Layana White.. (Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
197 Status Update re Disputed Jury Instructions filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White (Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
198 OBJECTIONS to Trial Brief 194 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 07/09/2017)

Case: 2:15-cv-298 As of: 10/20/2017 06:03 PM PDT 22 of 26

07/10/2017 07/10/2017 07/10/2017 07/10/2017 07/10/2017 07/11/2017
07/11/2017 07/12/2017 07/12/2017 07/12/2017 07/12/2017 07/14/2017 07/17/2017 07/17/2017 07/18/2017 07/18/2017

199 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. Motion set for hearing on 7/18/2017 at 09:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Hunt, David) (Entered: 07/10/2017)
200 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to on the Pleadings filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. Motion set for hearing on 7/18/2007 at 09:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Hunt, David) (Entered: 07/10/2017)
201 Amendment to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint 199 filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Hunt, David) (Entered: 07/10/2017)
202 Amendment to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to on the Pleadings 200 filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Hunt, David) (Entered: 07/10/2017)
209 MINUTES OF Final Pretrial Conference held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Court Reporter: Maria Bustillos. (smo) (Entered: 07/13/2017)
203 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to on the Pleadings 200 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint 199 , Amendment (Motion related) 201 , Amendment (Motion related) 202 . The following error(s) was found: Case number is incorrect or missing. Incorrect event selected. Proposed Document was not submitted as separate attachment. The correct event is: Civil events − select − Other Filings − select − Notices − select − Notice of Lodging and Attach the Proposed Order..: The incorrect caption was used when submitting the motion (refers to documents 199 and 200). In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (shb) (Entered: 07/11/2017)
204 AMENDED DOCUMENT filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. Amendment to Witness List 185 First Amended Joint Witness List [L−R 16−5] (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 07/11/2017)
205 NOTICE OF LODGING filed Proposed Order re Amendment (Motion related) 201 (Hunt, David) (Entered: 07/12/2017)
206 NOTICE OF LODGING filed Proposed Order re Amendment (Motion related) 202 (Hunt, David) (Entered: 07/12/2017)
207 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint 199 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 07/12/2017)
208 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings as to on the Pleadings 200 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 07/12/2017)
210 TRIAL BRIEF filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White.. (Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 07/14/2017)
211 AMENDED DOCUMENT filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. Amendment to Exhibit List 188 First Amended Joint Exhibit List (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 07/17/2017)
212 AMENDED DOCUMENT filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. Amendment to Amended Document (Non−Motion) 204 Second Amended Joint Witness List [L−R 16−5] (Victor, Paula) (Entered: 07/17/2017)
213 NOTICE of Lodging Deposition Transcripts filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 07/18/2017)
214 OBJECTIONS to Defendant Pepperdine University Deposition Designations filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 07/18/2017)

Case: 2:15-cv-298 As of: 10/20/2017 06:03 PM PDT 23 of 26

07/18/2017
07/18/2017 07/18/2017 07/19/2017 07/20/2017 07/21/2017 07/24/2017 07/24/2017 07/25/2017 07/26/2017 07/27/2017 07/27/2017 07/27/2017 07/28/2017 07/31/2017 08/01/2017

215 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Defendants Motion to Strike is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 199 The motion is GRANTED with respect to punitive damages allegations related to Title IX. The motion is DENIED, however, with respect to punitive damages allegations related to Plaintiffs Section 66270 claim. (pg) (Entered: 07/18/2017)
216 ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED. 200 (pg) (Entered: 07/18/2017)
217 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 1st Day held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Jury Trial continued to 7/19/2017 at 09:00 A.M. Court Reporter: Amy Diaz. (shb) (Entered: 07/19/2017)
218 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 2nd Day held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Jury empanelled and sworn. Opening statements made. Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. Jury Trial set for 7/20/2017 at 09:00 AM for further trial. Court Reporter: Amy Diaz. (shb) (Entered: 07/20/2017)
220 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 3rd Day held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. Jury Trial continued to 7/21/2017 at 09:00 A.M. before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Court Reporter: Amy Diaz. (shb) (Entered: 07/21/2017)
219 NOTICE Amended Notice of Lodging Deposition Transcripts filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 07/21/2017)
221 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 4th Day held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. Jury Trial continued to 7/24/2017 at 09:00 A.M. Court Reporter: Amy Diaz. (shb) (Entered: 07/24/2017)
222 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 5th Day held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. Jury Trial continued to 7/25/2017 at 09:00 A.M. Court Reporter: Amy Diaz. (shb) (Entered: 07/25/2017)
223 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 6th Day held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. Jury Trial continued to 7/26/2017 at 09:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Court Reporter: Amy Diaz. (shb) (Entered: 07/26/2017)
226 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 7th Day held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. Jury Trial continued to 7/27/2017 at 09:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Court Reporter: Amy Diaz. (shb) (Entered: 07/27/2017)
224 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS (Agreed Upon set) filed by Defendant Pepperdine University.. (Hunt, David) (Entered: 07/27/2017)
225 PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS (Non−Agreed Upon set) filed by Defendant Pepperdine University.. (Hunt, David) (Entered: 07/27/2017)
227 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 8th Day held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. Jury Trial continued to 7/28/2017 at 09:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Court Reporter: Amy Diaz. (shb) (Entered: 07/27/2017)
228 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 9th Day held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. Jury Trial continued to 7/31/2017 at 09:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Court Reporter: Amy Diaz. (pg) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
229 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 10th Day held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. Jury Trial set for 8/1/2017 at 09:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Court Reporter: Deborah Gackle / Amy Diaz. (shb) (Entered: 07/31/2017)
230 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 11th Day held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. Jury Trial set for 8/2/2017 09:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Court Reporter: Amy Diaz. (pg) (Entered: 08/01/2017)

Case: 2:15-cv-298 As of: 10/20/2017 06:03 PM PDT 24 of 26

08/02/2017 08/03/2017 08/07/2017 08/08/2017 08/09/2017 08/09/2017 08/09/2017 08/10/2017 08/10/2017 08/10/2017 08/11/2017
08/11/2017 08/11/2017 08/11/2017 08/11/2017 08/11/2017

231 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 12TH Day held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. Jury Trial set for 8/3/2017 09:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Court Reporter: Amy Diaz. (pg) (Entered: 08/02/2017)
232 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 13th Day held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. Jury Trial set for 8/7/2017 09:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Court Reporter: Amy Diaz. (pg) (Entered: 08/03/2017)
233 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 14th Day held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. Jury Trial set for 8/8/2017 09:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Court Reporter: Amy Diaz. (pg) (Entered: 08/07/2017)
234 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 15th Day held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. Jury Trial set for 8/9/2017 09:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Court Reporter: Amy Diaz. (pg) (Entered: 08/08/2017)
235 MEMORANDUM in Support of Entry of Judgment at Close of Plaintiff's Case filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Hunt, David) (Entered: 08/09/2017)
236 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 16th Day held before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Witnesses called, sworn and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. Jury Trial set for 8/11/2017 at 9:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Court Reporter: Amy Diaz. (pg) (Entered: 08/09/2017)
237 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Pepperdine's Motion for Entry of Judgment at Close of Plaintiffs' Case filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 08/09/2017)
238 PROPOSED JURY VERDICT filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement − Verdict Form − Haley Videckis, # 2 Supplement − Verdict Form − Layana White)(Hunt, David) (Entered: 08/10/2017)
239 Joint STIPULATION for Order To Introduce Defendant Pepperdine University's Response to Second Set of Interrogatories Propounded by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis and Layana White as Trial Exhibit 0373 filed by Plaintiff Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 08/10/2017)
240 Joint STIPULATION for Order on the Foundation of Evidence filed by Plaintiff Haley Videckis, Layana White.(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 08/10/2017)
241 MINUTES OF Jury Trial − 17th Day held and completed before Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Exhibits identified and admitted. Closing arguments made by plaintiffs and defendants. Court instructs jury. Bailiff sworn. Jury retires to deliberate. Verdict reached. Jury FINDS: in favor of Defendants. Jury polled. Filed witness and Exhibits Lists. Filed Jury Notes. Filed Jury Instructions. Motion for Judgment/Directed Verdict by Defendant Denied. Clerk reviewed admitted exhibits with counsel to be submitted to the Jury − Court for deliberation findings. Counsel stipulate to the return of exhibits upon the conclusion of trial. Exhibit Release Form prepared and filed. Court Reporter: Amy Diaz. (shb) (Entered: 08/14/2017)
242 Witness List. (shb) (Entered: 08/14/2017)
243 Exhibit List. (shb) (Entered: 08/14/2017)
244 Jury Notes # 1 filed. (shb) (Entered: 08/14/2017)
245 RECEIPT FOR RELEASE OF EXHIBITS to Counsel Upon Verdict/Judgment at Trial; Pursuant to stip of counsel and/or by Order of the Court, all exhibits listed on JOINT exhibits list are returned to counsel for respective party(ies). (shb) (Entered: 08/14/2017)
246 REDCTED JURY VERDICT in favor of Defendant Pepperdine University and against Haley Videckis. (shb) (Entered: 08/15/2017)

Case: 2:15-cv-298 As of: 10/20/2017 06:03 PM PDT 25 of 26

08/11/2017 08/11/2017 08/11/2017 08/11/2017 08/31/2017 09/11/2017 09/11/2017 09/25/2017 09/25/2017 09/25/2017 09/26/2017 09/26/2017 09/27/2017
09/27/2017 09/27/2017 09/29/2017

247 UNREDACTED VERDICT FORM FOR PLAINTIFF HALEY VIDECKS re Defendant Pepperdine University re: Jury Verdict 246 (shb) (Entered: 08/15/2017)
248 REDACTED JURY VERDICT in favor of Defendant Pepperdine University and against Layana White. (shb) (Entered: 08/15/2017)
249 UNREDACTED VERDICT FORM FOR PLAINTIFF LAYANA WHITE re Defendant Pepperdine University re: Jury Verdict 248 (shb) (Entered: 08/15/2017)
250 JURY INSTRUCTIONS (Given) by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (shb) (Entered: 08/17/2017)
251 NOTICE OF LODGING filed Notice of Lodging [Proposed] Judgment re Jury Trial − Completed,, 241 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [Proposed] Judgment in Favor of Defendant Pepperdine University Against Plaintiffs Haley Videckis and Layan White on Jury Verdicts)(Victor, Paula) (Entered: 08/31/2017)
252 ORDER RE COSTS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. The Court orders that each party bear its own costs. (shb) (Entered: 09/11/2017)
253 JUDGMENT by Judge Dean D. Pregerson, in favor of Pepperdine University against Haley Videckis, Layana White on Jury Verdicts. See order for details. (MD JS−6, Case Terminated). (shb) (Entered: 09/11/2017)
254 APPLICATION for Costs against Pepperdine University filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. Application set for hearing on 10/30/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit) (Hunt, David) (Entered: 09/25/2017)
255 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Amend Order 252 filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. Motion set for hearing on 10/30/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit) (Hunt, David) (Entered: 09/25/2017)
256 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. Motion set for hearing on 10/30/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit) (Hunt, David) (Entered: 09/25/2017)
257 Amended APPLICATION to the Clerk to Tax Costs against Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit) (Hunt, David) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
258 Amended NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Amend Order 252 filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. Motion set for hearing on 10/30/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Hunt, David) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
259 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees 256 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Amend Order 252 255 . The following error(s) was/were found: Proposed Document was not submitted as separate attachment. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (shb) (Entered: 09/27/2017)
260 NOTICE OF LODGING filed by Pepperdine University re Deficiency in Electronically Filed Documents (G−112A) − optional html form,, 259 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hunt, David) (Entered: 09/27/2017)
261 NOTICE OF LODGING filed by Pepperdine University re Deficiency in Electronically Filed Documents (G−112A) − optional html form,, 259 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hunt, David) (Entered: 09/27/2017)
262 SUPPLEMENT to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees 256 − Supplemental Declaration of David R. Hunt filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Hunt, David) (Entered: 09/29/2017)

Case: 2:15-cv-298 As of: 10/20/2017 06:03 PM PDT 26 of 26

10/02/2017 10/06/2017
10/06/2017 10/09/2017 10/11/2017 10/12/2017 10/16/2017 10/16/2017

263 OBJECTIONS to Amended APPLICATION to the Clerk to Tax Costs against Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White 257 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Smith, Meredith) (Entered: 10/02/2017)
264 OPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees 256 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Rob Dickerson, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Declaration of Jay Patel, # 4 Exhibit 1)(Attorney Meredith A Smith added to party Haley Videckis(pty:pla), Attorney Meredith A Smith added to party Layana White(pty:pla))(Smith, Meredith) (Entered: 10/06/2017)
265 OPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Amend Order 252 255 filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jayesh Patel, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Declaration of Rob Dickerson, # 4 Exhibit 1)(Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 10/06/2017)
266 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. correcting Response in Opposition to Motion, 264 for Attorney Fees (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Smith, Meredith) (Entered: 10/09/2017)
267 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals filed by Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. Appeal of Judgment 253 . (Appeal Fee − $505 Fee Paid, Receipt No. 0973−20644931.) (Patel, Jayesh) (Entered: 10/11/2017)
268 NOTIFICATION from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of case number assigned and briefing schedule. Appeal Docket No. 17−56548 assigned to Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 267 as to Plaintiffs Haley Videckis, Layana White. (lom) (Entered: 10/12/2017)
269 REPLY in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Attorney Fees 256 filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Hunt, David) (Entered: 10/16/2017)
270 REPLY in support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Amend Order 252 255 filed by Defendant Pepperdine University. (Hunt, David) (Entered: 10/16/2017)


[CONTENT] December 10, 2014 | two | Pepperdine University | the Superior Court | the County of Los Angeles |||  ||| the California Constitution | California | Title IX |||  ||| January 14, 2015 | the U.S. District Court | the Central District | California ||| February 5, 2015 ||| Two weeks later ||| April 16, 2015 | Dean D. Pregerson ||| California ||| Title IX ||| 100 ||| 3d 927 ||| June 9, 2015 | second ||| That same day ||| December 15, 2015 | Pregerson ||| 150 ||| 3d 1151 ||| March 2016 to August 2017 ||| July 18, 2017 to | August 11, 2017 ||| August 11, 2017 ||| September 11, 2017 ||| the U.S. Court of Appeals | the Ninth Circuit | October 12, 2017 ||| November 28, 2017 | December 15, 2017 ||| the District Court [SUMMARY] On December 10, 2014, two student-athletes brought this discrimination action against Pepperdine University in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. The plaintiffs alleged that the university administration, athletic department, and women’s basketball coach coordinated to discriminate against them because of their same-sex relationship, resulting in dismissal from the basketball team and loss of athletic scholarships, which forced them to leave school. The plaintiffs’ complaint asserted state claims for violation of rights under the California Constitution and California state law and federal claims for violation of Title IX. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs sought monetary damages.

On January 14, 2015, the defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs then amended the complaint on February 5, 2015. Two weeks later, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. 

On April 16, 2015, Federal District Judge Dean D. Pregerson issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. Specifically, the court denied the motion to dismiss the invasion of privacy claim as to the plaintiffs' sexual orientation and the violations of California’s Educational Code or invasion of privacy via medical records. Further, since the plaintiffs did not contest Pepperdine’s assertion that Title IX does not cover sexual orientation discrimination, the court dismissed Title IX claims with leave to amend. 100 F. Supp. 3d 927. 

On June 9, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, claiming that Title IX covered gender stereotype discrimination. That same day, the defendants again filed a motion to dismiss the Title IX claim, claiming the statute's prohibition on the "basis of sex" did not cover sexual orientation.

On December 15, 2015, Judge Pregerson denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding “the distinction is illusory and artificial, and that sexual orientation discrimination is not a category distinct from sex or gender discrimination”, and that “claims of sexual orientation discrimination are gender stereotype or sex discrimination claims.” 150 F. Supp. 3d 1151. The parties proceeded with discovery from March 2016 to August 2017.

Trial was held from July 18, 2017 to August 11, 2017. On August 11, 2017, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant on all claims. The court entered a judgement based on the verdict on September 11, 2017.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (No. 17-56548) on October 12, 2017. A mediation conference was scheduled for November 28, 2017 and on December 15, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal. 

There were no further developments in the District Court and the case is closed. 