Jane Does 1-13 and 15-17 et al v. Mount Saint Mary High School Corporation of the State of Oklahoma et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JANE DOES 1, et al., 	)
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. CIV-22-992-R
)
MOUNT SAINT MARY HIGH SCHOOL )
CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF 	)
OKLAHOMA, an Oklahoma corporation; )
et al., 	)
)
Defendants 	)
ORDER
This order addresses four motions pending before the Court: the Roman Catholic
Archdiocese of Oklahoma City’s Motion to Compel [Doc. No. 114, 116, 122], Mount Saint
Mary High School Corporation’s Motion to Compel [Doc. No. 113, 116, 121], Plaintiff’s
Motion for Referral to United States Magistrate Judge and/or Protective Order [Doc. No.
117, 118, 126, 130], and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Combined Response
[Doc. No. 128].1
Ten student Plaintiffs and six parent Plaintiffs filed this action against Mount Saint
Mary High School, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, and the Sisters of
Mercy. They allege that the student Plaintiffs were sexually harassed or assaulted while
1 In the interests of resolving the pending motions in an efficient manner, the Court has
entered this order before the completion of the briefing cycle for the Motion for Leave to
File Amended Combined Response. If Defendants feel that additional responsive argument
is necessary, they may submit a written response to the motion and the Court will consider
whether any additional relief or dispositive rulings are warranted.
Case 5:22-cv-00992-R Document 134 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 8

2
attending MSM, which is allegedly sponsored, owned, or operated by the Archdiocese and
Sisters of Mercy. 2 The precise claims that are still pending vary somewhat by Plaintiff, but
include claims for breach of contract, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, and violations of Title IX.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide Defendants with a way to obtain
information from Plaintiffs about these very serious allegations. Namely, the Rules require
Plaintiffs, as they do all litigants, to provide the other party with basic information about
persons likely to have discoverable information, documents it may use to support its claims
or defenses, a computation of each category of damages it is claiming, and any pertinent
insurance policies. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). The Rules also allow a party to serve
interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission to the opposing party.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, 34, 36. The Rules additionally require litigants to supplement their
responses when warranted and to sit for a deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e), 30.
Defendants have attempted to make use of these tools by serving separate sets of
written discovery requests on individual Plaintiffs and noticing them for depositions.
Plaintiffs responded to the discovery requests propounded by the Sisters of Mercy, but have
not provided responses to the interrogatories and requests for production propounded by
the Archdiocese or MSM. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ characterization, there is nothing
2 Plaintiffs’ brief in response [Doc. No. 116] states that Defendants’ “lawyers continue the
abuse via discovery.” This personal attack on Defendants’ counsel is unwarranted and
inappropriate.
Case 5:22-cv-00992-R Document 134 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 8

3
“abusive” about this discovery conduct. Serving discovery requests is a standard, and
indeed necessary, part of litigating a lawsuit.
Plaintiffs’ primary objection to the discovery is that Defendants have sent requests
that are duplicative of requests sent by a co-defendant. Assuming that is the case, the Court
fails to see how it places an undue or disproportionate burden on Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs can
simply cross-reference their responses or duplicate their answers. Defendants’ requests
seek information about people who may have knowledge about Plaintiffs’ claims,
information about damages, and communications related to the incidents underlying the
lawsuit. These are standard topics in discovery and Plaintiffs concede that “[t]he
information Defendants seek is unquestionably relevant and important.” See Doc. No. 118
at p. 20. Although there may be situations where it is appropriate to treat nominally separate
defendants as a single party for purposes of discovery, see 8B Federal Practice and
Procedure § 2168.1 (3d ed.), the Court does not find Plaintiffs’ complaints about the
duplicative or disproportionate nature of the discovery requests persuasive in this case.
Plaintiffs’ have failed to respond to the discovery requests and an order compelling their
responses is therefore warranted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.
Unfortunately, that is not the end of the matter. The Court is loath to have to enter
an order such as this, but feels that it necessary. First, the Court is concerned by the
suggestion that Plaintiffs’ two attorneys are making conflicting representations to opposing
counsel. MSM contends that Plaintiffs served their responses to MSM’s requests for
admission via mail and over two weeks late, rather than by electronic means as the parties
had previously agreed. In response, Plaintiffs’ state that one of their lawyers agreed to
Case 5:22-cv-00992-R Document 134 Filed 02/24/26 Page 3 of 8

4
electronic service and the other lawyer did not agree to electronic service. To the extent
Plaintiffs are suggesting that their own attorneys can make opposing representations, they
are mistaken. Defendants (and the Court) must be able to rely on the representations of
counsel without having to guess as to whether co-counsel will subsequently disavow the
representation.
Second, Plaintiffs’ filed their response brief after the briefing deadline passed with
nary a word to the Court until Defendants complained. When a party cannot meet a
deadline, the proper procedure is to inform opposing counsel and then file a motion,
preferably one that is unopposed, seeking an extension of time. The Court is almost always
willing to accommodate such requests. In the event an emergency or other circumstance
prevents a party from meeting a deadline or filing a motion for extension, the party should
file a motion requesting permission to file a brief out of time. Again, the Court is almost
always willing to accommodate such requests when the circumstances warrant relief.
Plaintiffs did not follow these basic procedures and simply filed their brief late.
After Defendants’ reply briefs noted the late filing, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Leave to File Amended Combined Response. The motion requested, among other things,
permission to file their response to the Motions to Compel out of time. The motion avers
that both of Plaintiffs’ attorneys experienced serious health or personal issues near the
filing deadline. Given that the health issues were sudden and unexpected, the delay in filing
was not significant, and there is no discernable prejudice to Defendants, the Court finds
that Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing excusable neglect. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
Case 5:22-cv-00992-R Document 134 Filed 02/24/26 Page 4 of 8

5
6(b)(1)(B); Perez v. El Tequila, LLC, 847 F.3d 1247, 1253 (10th Cir. 2017). The Court will
therefore not strike the response brief as untimely.
The Motion for Leave also requests permission to file an amended brief. The reason
this request is being made is because the original response brief contains quotations that
are inaccurate or citations to legal authorities that do not appear to exist. Plaintiffs are
seeking permission to correct these inaccuracies by filing an amended brief. In an effort to
explain what appears to be a patent violation of their obligations under Rule 11, counsel
offers a convoluted explanation about problems implementing new technological tools that
“resulted in unanticipated version-control interaction with the existing electronic-filing
workflow.” Doc. No. 128 at p. 10. On this record, the Court is not convinced by counsel’s
explanation. Accordingly, both of Plaintiffs’ attorneys are directed to appear for a hearing
on this issue, which will be set by the Court in a separate order. The Court is considering
whether sanctions are appropriate and counsel should therefore be prepared to show cause
why their conduct did not violate Rule 11(b).
Additionally, the response brief and other filings contain what appears to be excerpts
of materials that are covered by a Protective Order. This is not the only time Plaintiffs’
counsel has improperly placed confidential material onto the public docket. See Order of
Feb. 11, 2026 [Doc. No. 127]. Counsel should also be prepared to address this topic at the
hearing, including identifying any material that needs to be sealed or redacted.
The response brief also contains several requests for relief that are more
appropriately included in a separate motion and therefore appear to be in violation of
LCvR7.1(c). The Court primarily points this out to demonstrate that there appears to be a
Case 5:22-cv-00992-R Document 134 Filed 02/24/26 Page 5 of 8

6
repeated willingness to flout procedural rules and court orders. This should go without
saying, but further noncompliance will not be tolerated.
The final motion addressed in this order is Plaintiffs’ Motion seeking a referral to a
magistrate judge to coordinate discovery and for a protective order to preclude Defendants
from engaging in duplicative or burdensome discovery tactics. The motion expounds on
Plaintiffs’ claim that the duplicative discovery responses are disproportionate to the needs
of this case. Once again, the Court disagrees that Defendants separate sets of discovery are
unduly burdensome or disproportionate. If Plaintiffs take issues with the breadth of a
specific request, they should confer with Defendants in a good faith attempt to resolve the
dispute, and then seek court intervention if necessary.
In any event, the main thrust of this motion is that Plaintiffs want this matter referred
to a magistrate judge for management of the discovery process. The Court has no doubt
that a magistrate judge would capably handle the parties’ discovery disputes, but there is
no need to foist these burdens on one of our busy magistrate judges. The Court believes it
is up to the task of resolving the parties’ discovery disputes and expects counsel to comply
with their obligation to meet and confer in good faith in advance of seeking court
intervention. Further, if Plaintiffs were genuinely concerned about complications during
the discovery process, the time to raise those concerns was months ago when the parties
engaged in their discovery planning conference and then appeared before the Court for a
status conference. The Court is inclined to agree with Defendants that in the time Plaintiffs
spent preparing their lengthy briefs they could have simply answered Defendants’
discovery responses and resolved at least some of these disputes.
Case 5:22-cv-00992-R Document 134 Filed 02/24/26 Page 6 of 8

7
There is one final issue. Defendants seek their fees and costs associated with filing
their respective motions to compel and responding to Plaintiffs’ motion for referral. Rule
37 permits the court to award a party the reasonable expenses and fees incurred in making
or opposing a discovery motion. Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to the discovery requests was
not substantially justified and the Court is aware of no other circumstances that would make
an award of fees unjust.
Accordingly, the Court rules as follows:
 The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City’s Motion to Compel
[Doc. No. 114] is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are directed to respond within
fourteen days of the date of this Order.
 Mount Saint Mary High School Corporation’s Motion to Compel [Doc. No.
113] is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are directed to respond within fourteen days
of the date of this Order.
 Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs associated with filing their
respective motions to compel and submitting a response to Plaintiff’s Motion
for Referral is GRANTED. Defendants are directed to submit evidence of
their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs within fourteen days of the date of
this Order.
 Plaintiff’s Motion for Referral to United States Magistrate Judge and/or
Protective Order [Doc. No. 117] is DENIED.
 Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Combined Response [Doc.
No. 128] is GRANTED only to the extent that Plaintiffs’ original response
Case 5:22-cv-00992-R Document 134 Filed 02/24/26 Page 7 of 8

8
will not be stricken as untimely. The remaining aspects of the motion are
DENIED and the Court will set a hearing to address Plaintiffs’ counsels’ use
of inaccurate citations and confidential material by separate order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of February, 2026.
Case 5:22-cv-00992-R Document 134 Filed 02/24/26 Page 8 of 8