Gov.uscourts.txsd.726351.6.0

7/29/2019 Gov.uscourts.txsd.726351.6.0

1/8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION

T. DORINA PAPAGEORGIOU,

Plaintiff, vs. Civil Action No. 4:10-CV-240

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH

SCIENCE CENTER AT HOUSTON

Defendant.

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 co-

authored 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 1 of 8


2/8

Joint Report, Discovery & Case Management Plan

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 thatfact. 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 authorshipdisputes, 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.



3/8


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) Discovery shall be completed by February 18, 2011.

(2) Discovery may be conducted on all subjects relevant to

Plaintiffs latest pleadings and the Defendants defenses.

(3) The parties do not believe that any changes in the Federal

Rules limitations on discovery are necessary for this case.

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.



4/8


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 beable 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.



5/8


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 resolutiontechniques 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 jointposition 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 Orderfor Conference and Disclosure of Interested Parties, listing the date of filing for original

and any amendments.



6/8


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,LLPTexas Bar No. 08114950

Southern District Bar No. 13812

8 Greenway Plaza, 14th

FloorHouston, Texas 77046

Telephone: (713) 526-3700

Facsimile: (713) 526-3750

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

GREG ABBOTTAttorney General of Texas

C. ANDREW WEBERFirst 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 GeneralGeneral Litigation Division

Office of the Attorney General

P.O. Box 12548, Capitol StationAustin, Texas 78711-2548

Telephone: (512) 463-2120

Facsimile: (512) 320-0667Email: [email protected]



7/8


Page 7 of 8

Respectfully submitted,

DOW GOLUB REMELS &BEVERLY,LLP

By: /s Andrew S. GolubAndrew S. GolubTexas Bar No. 08114950

Southern District Bar No. 13812

8 Greenway Plaza, 14th Floor

Houston, Texas 77046Telephone: (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. BrayTIMOTHY E. BRAY

Texas Bar No. 24061240

Southern Dist. No. 898728Assistant Attorney General

General Litigation Division

Office of the Attorney General

P.O. Box 12548, Capitol StationAustin, Texas 78711-2548

Telephone: (512) 463-2120

Facsimile: (512) 320-0667



8/8


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 tothe following:

Timothy E. Bray

Assistant Attorney General

General Litigation DivisionOffice of the Attorney General

P. O. Box 12548, Capital Station

Austin, Texas 78711-2548

/s Andrew S. Golub


Documents

Gov.uscourts.txsd.726351.6.0