You are on page 1of 8

Case 4:10-cv-00240 Document 6

Filed in TXSD on 05/19/10 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION T. DORINA PAPAGEORGIOU, Plaintiff, vs. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT HOUSTON Defendant.

Civil Action No. 4:10-CV-240

JOINT REPORT OF THE MEETING AND JOINT DISCOVERY & CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN NOW COMES the Plaintiff, T. Dorina Papageorgiou, by and through Attorney Andrew S. Golub, and the Defendant, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (hereinafter UTHealth), by and through the Office of Attorney General, and hereby submit this Rule 26(f) Report and Discovery Plan: 1. State where and when the meeting of the parties required by Rule 26(f) was held, and identify the counsel who attended for each party. The parties, through their representatives, Andrew S. Golub for T. Dorina Papgeorgiou, and Assistant Attorney General Timothy E. Bray for UTHealth, personally conferred in Houston on May 18, 2010, concerning the preparation of this report and a proposed discovery schedule. 2. List the cases related to this one that are pending in any state or federal court with the case number and court. None. 3. Briefly describe what this case is about. Plaintiff filed a sexual harassment suit against UTHealth in 2005. The suit was settled in 2006. As part of the settlement, UTHealth acknowledge[d] its previous commitment to ensure, to the extent possible, that Papageorgiou receive[d] credit as second author on the Serotonin and Alcohol-Induced Impulsivity paper she coauthored with Donald Dougherty. UTHealths agreement included at a minimum, contacting any publisher or editor who is found to be contemplating publication of the paper on Papageorgious behalf to inform them that

Case 4:10-cv-00240 Document 6

Filed in TXSD on 05/19/10 Page 2 of 8

Papageorgiou is a co-author of such paper. Papageorgiou contends here that upon learning that Donald Dougherty was having the aforementioned paper published she contacted UTHealth so that it could abide by the aforementioned promises, but that UTHealth refused to do so. Plaintiff claims that this was a breach of contract because UTHealth had already agreed that Plaintiff is a co-author of [the] paper and it had committed, at a minimum, to contact the publisher and advise it of that fact. Plaintiff also contends that UTHealth breached it promise because she filed charges of sex discrimination and her previous lawsuit. UTHealth denies the allegations on the basis that it could not have reasonably ensured authorship credit as required by the settlement agreement because Dr. Dougherty did not publish the work until after he left his employment at UTHealth (his article was published after he began working at Wake Forest University). Furthermore, because Dr. Dougherty was not employed by UTHealth at the time of the articles publication, and therefore had no knowledge of the publication, UTHealth is not liable for retaliation as a matter of law. Moreover, although by UTHealth policy and practice the institution does not involve itself in authorship disputes, UTHealth engaged in such an effort in this case. However, UTHealth was advised by the publisher (of Dr. Doughertys article) that it had no guidelines concerning issues such as this. On the advise of Wake Forest University counsel, Dr. Dougherty provided a detailed written response to the publisher concerning Papageorgious allegations, and a copy was provided to UTHealth. Papageorgiou did not provide the publisher or UTHealth with a response rebutting Dr. Doughertys explanation. Regardless, UTHealth cannot dictate publishing credit to the publisher of the journal. 4. Specify the allegation of federal jurisdiction. This case was removed to this Court by UTHealth on January 26, 2010, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441(b) and on the basis that Plaintiff has alleged a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court therefore has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331. 5. Name the parties who disagree and the reasons. None. 6. List anticipated additional parties that should be included, when they can be added, and by whom they are wanted. None.

Joint Report, Discovery & Case Management Plan Page 2 of 8

Case 4:10-cv-00240 Document 6

Filed in TXSD on 05/19/10 Page 3 of 8

7.

List anticipated interventions. None.

8.

Describe class- action issues. None.

9.

State whether each party represents that it has made the initial disclosures required by Rule 26(a). If not, describe the arrangements that have been made to complete the disclosures. The parties will exchange Initial Disclosures by June 11, 2010.

10.

Describe the proposed agreed discovery plan, including: A. Responses to all the matters raised in Rule 26(f). (1) (2) Discovery shall be completed by February 18, 2011. Discovery may be conducted on all subjects relevant to Plaintiffs latest pleadings and the Defendants defenses. The parties do not believe that any changes in the Federal Rules limitations on discovery are necessary for this case.

(3)

B.

When and to whom the plaintiff anticipates it may send interrogatories. Plaintiff anticipates serving interrogatories by July 15, 2010.

C.

When and to whom the defendant anticipates it may send interrogatories. It is anticipated that UTHealth will propound interrogatories to the Plaintiff by July 9, 2010.

D.

Of whom and by when the plaintiff anticipates taking oral depositions. Plaintiff anticipates taking depositions, by the close of discovery, of fact witnesses identified by the parties in their respective Initial Disclosures.

Joint Report, Discovery & Case Management Plan Page 3 of 8

Case 4:10-cv-00240 Document 6

Filed in TXSD on 05/19/10 Page 4 of 8

E.

Of whom and by when the defendant anticipates taking oral depositions. Defendant anticipates taking depositions, by the close of discovery, of fact witnesses identified by the parties in their respective Initial Disclosures.

F. When Plaintiff (or the party with the burden of proof on an issue) will be able to designate experts and provide the reports required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B), and when the opposing party will be able to designated responsive experts and provide their reports. Plaintiff will serve expert reports by December 15, 2010. Defendant will serve expert reports by January 15, 2011. G. List expert depositions the parties anticipate taking and their anticipated completion date. See Rule26(a)(2)(B) (export report). The parties anticipate conducting expert depositions by the close of discovery. 11. If the parties are not agreed on a part of the discovery plan, describe the separate view and proposals of each party. None. 12. Specify the discovery beyond initial disclosures that has been undertaken to date. None. 13. State the date the planned discovery can reasonably be completed. The parties believe discovery can reasonably be completed by February 18, 2011. 14. Describe the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case that were discussed in your Rule 26(f) meeting. At the Rule 26(f) meeting the parties had a clear and frank discussion regarding settlement. Based upon that discussion, UTHealths counsel will speak with his client about possibilities for a prompt resolution of this case.

Joint Report, Discovery & Case Management Plan Page 4 of 8

Case 4:10-cv-00240 Document 6

Filed in TXSD on 05/19/10 Page 5 of 8

15.

Describe what each party has done or agreed to do to bring about a prompt resolution. At the Rule 26(f) meeting the parties had a clear and frank discussion regarding settlement. Based upon that discussion, UTHealths counsel will speak with his client about possibilities for a prompt resolution of this case.

16.

From the attorneys discussion with the client, state the alternative dispute resolution techniques that are reasonably suitable. Should the Parties be unable to resolve this matter directly, and after reasonable time for discovery, the Parties believe that mediation may be a suitable ADR technique.

17.

Magistrate judges may now hear jury and non-jury trials. Indicate the parities joint position on a trial before a magistrate judge. The parties do not jointly agree to a trial before a magistrate judge.

18.

State whether a jury demand has been made and if it was made on time. A jury has been properly and timely demanded.

19.

Specify the number of hours it will take to present the evidence in this case. The parties anticipate that it will take approximately 10-15 hours to present the evidence in this case.

20.

List pending motions that could be ruled on at the initial pretrial and scheduling conference. None.

21.

List other motions pending. None.

22.

Indicate other matters peculiar to this case, including discovery, that deserve the special attention of the court at the conference. None.

23.

Certify that all parties have filed Disclosure of Interested Parties as directed in the Order for Conference and Disclosure of Interested Parties, listing the date of filing for original and any amendments. Joint Report, Discovery & Case Management Plan Page 5 of 8

Case 4:10-cv-00240 Document 6

Filed in TXSD on 05/19/10 Page 6 of 8

Defendant filed its Disclosure of Interested Parties on May 7, 2010. Plaintiff filed her Disclosure of Interested Parties on May 18, 2010. 24. List the names, bar numbers, addresses, and telephone numbers of all counsel. COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF Andrew S. Golub DOW GOLUB REMELS & BEVERLY, LLP Texas Bar No. 08114950 Southern District Bar No. 13812 8 Greenway Plaza, 14th Floor Houston, Texas 77046 Telephone: (713) 526-3700 Facsimile: (713) 526-3750 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT GREG ABBOTT Attorney General of Texas C. ANDREW WEBER First Assistant Attorney General DAVID S. MORALES Deputy Attorney General for Litigation ROBERT B. OKEEFE Chief, General Litigation Division TIMOTHY E. BRAY Texas Bar No. 24061240 Southern Dist. No. 898728 Assistant Attorney General General Litigation Division Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-2548 Telephone: (512) 463-2120 Facsimile: (512) 320-0667 Email: tim.bray@oag.state.tx.us

Joint Report, Discovery & Case Management Plan Page 6 of 8

Case 4:10-cv-00240 Document 6

Filed in TXSD on 05/19/10 Page 7 of 8

Respectfully submitted, DOW GOLUB REMELS & BEVERLY, LLP

By: /s Andrew S. Golub Andrew S. Golub Texas Bar No. 08114950 Southern District Bar No. 13812 8 Greenway Plaza, 14th Floor Houston, Texas 77046 Telephone: (713) 526-3700 Facsimile: (713) 526-3750

GREG ABBOTT Attorney General of Texas C. ANDREW WEBER First Assistant Attorney General DAVID S. MORALES Deputy Attorney General for Litigation ROBERT B. OKEEFE Chief, General Litigation Division

/s Timothy E. Bray TIMOTHY E. BRAY Texas Bar No. 24061240 Southern Dist. No. 898728 Assistant Attorney General General Litigation Division Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-2548 Telephone: (512) 463-2120 Facsimile: (512) 320-0667

Joint Report, Discovery & Case Management Plan Page 7 of 8

Case 4:10-cv-00240 Document 6

Filed in TXSD on 05/19/10 Page 8 of 8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Andrew S. Golub, hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing document was electronically filed (by CM/ECF) with the Clerk of Court for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on May 19, 2010, and that electronic notification of such filing, with access to a copy of this document, will be forwarded to the following: Timothy E. Bray Assistant Attorney General General Litigation Division Office of the Attorney General P. O. Box 12548, Capital Station Austin, Texas 78711-2548

/s Andrew S. Golub

Joint Report, Discovery & Case Management Plan Page 8 of 8