Firm that investigated sexual abuse in Ohio State ordered to release interview materials

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — The firm that conducted an investigation into allegations of sexual abuse by an Ohio State University doctor must turn over its interview notes and other investigative materials to survivors’ lawyers, a court has ruled.

The order issued Wednesday by a federal judge is a victory for the survivors of former Ohio State doctor Richard Strauss. During his two decades as a doctor at the student health center and doctor for the university sports team, an independent investigation published in 2019 found that Strauss had sexually abused at least 177 former students, mostly men – and that university officials had known about the work since his sophomore year.

“Although OSU has publicly reiterated its commitment to transparency as this case proceeds through the courts, both OSU and Perkins Coie fought vigorously to suppress this information. Today we are grateful to the court for holding them accountable and ordering Perkins Coie to release these documents,” the lawyers representing the survivors said in a statement. “We look forward to a better understanding of the Perkins-Coie investigation and the additional context these documents will provide to the breadth and depth of OSU’s knowledge of Strauss’ abuse and its failure to take action to stop it stop describing.”

Strauss, who worked at Ohio State from 1978 to 1998, died by suicide in 2005. Since 2018, more than 400 victims and their families have filed lawsuits against Ohio State for failing to prevent and address the abuse.

The state of Ohio fought survivors’ lawsuits for years, culminating in a failed appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023. The university has settled with nearly 300 survivors for $60 million since 2020, including through a settlement program that individual survivors in the open cases may have elected to join.

What has delayed trials for more than 230 survivors in ongoing court cases is a years-long dispute over whether materials produced by the independent inquiry should be turned over to survivors’ lawyers. The firm Perkins Coie interviewed more than 500 people, including former students, administrators, coaches, doctors and university employees, and attorneys for the survivors want documents relating to many of those interviews – including interview notes, witness lists and contact information.

Perkins Coie had argued that its investigative materials were protected by both work product and attorney-client privilege, claiming that the volume of documents placed an unreasonable burden on the firm to sort and share them. The State of Ohio, meanwhile, argued that the materials were doubly protected under its own assertion of attorney-client privilege.

Judge Elizabeth Deavers disagreed with Perkins Coie and Ohio State on the vast majority of their claims.

For one thing, Deavers wrote, Perkins Coie never legally represented Ohio State. In fact, Ohio State was never a Perkins Coie customer; The independent investigation was commissioned by the State of Ohio’s special prosecutor in the case, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur.

Deavers acknowledged that communications between Perkins Coie and Porter Wright, insofar as they concerned legal advice, were protected by attorney-client privilege. But the survivors’ lawyers never asked for such communication between the companies.

In order for the work product privilege to apply to the investigative materials, Perkins Coie had to demonstrate that the investigative materials were prepared in response to a reasonably anticipated legal action against the State of Ohio. But Ohio State University’s descriptions of the purpose of the investigation suggest otherwise, Deavers noted, pointing to the university’s website dedicated to the Strauss investigation and containing press releases, university-wide emails and statements suggesting it that the university is committed to transparency in the investigation.

“Without elaborating, OSU’s creation and maintenance of the dedicated website is evidence of a business-related public relations element of the investigation,” Deavers wrote. “Both Perkins Coie and OSU are failing to address this issue.”

Ultimately, Deavers ordered the following:

• Perkins Coie must turn in spreadsheets and interview notes prepared for each non-surviving witness they interviewed. Non-surviving witnesses include former and current university employees, non-surviving students and other third parties.
• Perkins Coie is under no obligation to create confidential communications relating to legal advice between Perkins Coie and its client Porter Wright
• Perkins Coie must determine within 30 days whether the remaining documents required by the survivors’ attorneys from the original release of source material related to the State of Ohio investigation are publicly available. If the documents differ, Perkins Coie must identify the categories of those documents and consult with the survivor’s attorneys about the preparation of those materials.
• To prevent undue burden on Perkins Coie, the court will determine whether the firm is required to provide written communications or records of written communications between Perkins Coie and non-surviving witnesses. The court will examine a selection of such documents confidentially.

An Ohio State spokesman declined to comment, saying only that the university was reviewing the ruling.