Mahmoud, Ahmed v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
AHMED MAHMOUD,
FINAL PRETRIAL
CONFERENCE ORDER
Plaintiff,
v. 	24-cv-384-jdp
BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
SYSTEM,
Defendant.
This order memorializes the rulings at the final pretrial conference of March 18, 2026.
Counsel predicted that the case would take five days to try. The court will inform the
jurors accordingly.
Witnesses 	will 	be 	sequestered, 	with 	the 	exception 	of 	plaintiff 	and 	defendant’s
representative.
The court set deadlines for certain filings pertaining to exhibits and trial documents.
Corrected exhibits and exhibit lists are to be served and filed by Friday, March 20; any
objections to the corrected exhibits and exhibit lists must be filed by Tuesday, March 24;
objections to the court's draft voir dire, jury instructions, and the special verdict must be filed
by Monday, March 23.
The court ruled on unresolved in limine issues.
1. 	The court denied plaintiff’s motion to admit several categories of evidence under
Rule 801(d)(2)(D) over anticipated hearsay objections, Dkt. 181. Plaintiff may still admit
evidence under this and possibly other exceptions but must do so on an individual basis.
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 249 Filed: 03/19/26 Page 1 of 3

2
2. 	The court granted in part plaintiff’s motion to limit the testimony of the former
dean of the School of Medicine and Public Health, Robert Golden, Dkt. 182. Golden may
testify about his involvement with the reasons for non-renewal letter and the advice he shared
with Wellik during their monthly meetings.
3. 	The court addressed plaintiff’s motion to use summaries at trial, Dkt. 184. The
court will allow plaintiff to use the comparator chart as a demonstrative exhibit only; he must
revise the chart to accurately reflect plaintiff’s qualifications at the time of the September vote
and remove the “impact factor” designations. The court gave plaintiff a chance to revise the
on-campus/in-person activities chart. The court will allow the chart only if underlying evidence
directly supports his actual presence on campus.
4. 	Plaintiff withdrew its motion to bifurcate the trial into liability and damages
phases. See Dkt. 174. Defendant stands on its motion to bifurcate. Dkt. 167. The court will
decide whether to bifurcate the trial after it receives this week’s submissions.
5. 	The parties informed the court that they had identified all the witnesses who
would be testifying by videoconference. At this point, no further relief is warranted on
plaintiff’s motion. Dkt. 174.
6. 	The court addressed the scope of the testimony of plaintiff’s wife, Sera Serag. If
Serag testifies, she will be subject to the sequestration order. At the hearing, the court limited
her testimony to her personal knowledge of plaintiff’s manifested emotional distress. During
her deposition, Serag asserted spousal and attorney-client privilege to certain questions about
her communication with plaintiff. The court will review the transcript of the deposition to
determine whether her assertion of privilege would prevent her from testifying even on the
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 249 Filed: 03/19/26 Page 2 of 3

3
topic of plaintiff’s emotional distress. The court will take up the matter at the March 25
conference.
7. 	The court denied defendant’s motion to exclude plaintiff from testifying that
Wellik discouraged him from seeking an extension, Dkt. 167, at 12.
8. 	The court denied defendant’s motion to exclude plaintiff from seeking monetary
damages for emotional distress. Dkt. 167, at 12. Plaintiff disclosed this category of damages,
and damages for emotional distress do not have to be calculated before trial or even at trial.
9. 	The court granted defendant’s motion to strike the testimony of plaintiff’s
expert Laurie Boyer, Dkt. 183. As explained in detail at the hearing, Boyer’s report is merely
conclusory, 	failing 	to 	provide 	any 	analysis 	to 	support 	her 	conclusions 	that 	plaintiff’s
qualifications equaled or exceeded that of the comparators and that plaintiff met the standards
for tenure at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
10. 	The court granted in part defendant’s motion to exclude testimony from
plaintiff’s medical and mental health providers, Dkt. 186. Specifically, plaintiff’s providers may
testify about their treatment of plaintiff, but they may not testify about any future emotional
distress or need for future treatment.
The court will hold a second final pretrial conference at 2:30 p.m. on March 25, 2026.
The purpose of the second conference will be to pre-rule on objections to the exhibits. The
parties are ordered to meet and confer about their objections before the second conference.
Entered March 19, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:24-cv-00384-jdp Document #: 249 Filed: 03/19/26 Page 3 of 3