RC JABMohael Jeanes, Clerk of Cc Electronically Filed E. Hailes, Deputy 4/18/2017 12:06:00 PM Filing ID 8261383 .Iaburg Wilk, RC. 3200 N. Central Avenue, 20th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85012 602.248.1000 Kraig J. Marton (003 816) kj m@j aburgwilk. com Jeffrey A. Silence (029143) jxs@j aburgwilkcom Attorneys for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA COUNTY OF Timothy Slater, Case No. Plaintiff, MOTION TO v. RECONSIDER DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS FOR BREACH OF Arizona Board of Regents, a legally CONFIDENTIALITY AND established agency and political NEGLIGENCE subdivision of the State of Arizona, [Assigned to the Honorable Kerstin Defendant. LeMaire] Pursuant to ARCP Plaintiff, Dr. Timothy Slater Slater?), requests that the Court reconsider its March 15, 2017 ruling, which dismissed Dr. Slater?s claims for breach of con?dentiality and negligence. The Court should reconsider because the Court is mistaken as to one of the key facts on which its decision is based. The Court stated in its ruling that there was no confidentiality policy that applied to the University of Arizona (March 17, 2017 ruling p. 1). That is not true. The Arizona Board of Regents? Policy Manual contains two policies that impose a duty of con?dentiality on the UofA and which specifically apply to this I 00 a] n?sr?ti?x ABURC l. case. In retrospect, we may have added unnecessary confusion by citing to statutes and policies that did not directly apply instead of focusing on the applicable policies. We request that the Court reconsider because ABOR policy establishes a clear duty of con?dentiality, which UofA admits its breached. 1. ABOR Policy requires con?dentiality of the Report. The Court?s March 15, 2017 order dismissing Dr. Slater?s claims for breach of con?dentiality and negligence states, Plaintiff fails to show that . . . the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) breached his right to con?dentiality by the release of an investigative report pursuant to a public records request. None of {he statutes, regulations, or policies cited applied to ABOR. The Court is mistaken. In our response, we cited to and discussed ABOR 6?912, but it may be that the Court did not realize that this policy specifically applied to the University of Arizona. However, the ABOR Policy Manual applies to all of the public universities, including the UofA. Attached as Exhibit 1 is ABOR 1?119, which states, ?This policy applies to a? Board and university employees.? ABOR 1?1 19 further states, All Board and university employees who, in their administrative capacity, receive reports of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation shall maintain the con?dentiality of the information they receive, except where disclosure is required by law or is necessary to facilitate legitimate Board or university processes, including the reporting, investigation, and resolution of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation allegations. We cited ABOR 6?912 but that cite could have been overlooked by the Court in light of the many other policies and statutes we also cited. However, ABOR 6-912 places signi?cant limits on what kind of information can be released about a university 1 Emphasis ours unless otherwise noted. employee. This policy states that disclosure is limited to ??nal written disciplinary actions? and the report in question was in no way a disciplinary action. By dismissing two signi?cant counts on a motion to dismiss, this court has found, as a matter of law, that there is no way that the UofA could be liable for any breach of con?dentiality. This can not be so when there is at least a fact question as to whether the UofA violated it owns policies in releasing the report. Undersigned counsel considered ?ling an amended complaint, but the issue is not a problem with how the complaint has been pled. We instead ask the Court to reconsider. H. ABOR 1-119 and 6-912 A DUTY 0F CONFIDENTIALITY. In brief, ABOR 6-912(4) states that when UofA receives a public records request for an employee?s personnel records, it may provide basic information such as name, dates of employment, salary, and those records ?that are reasonably necessary to maintain an accurate knowledge of employee actions.? (ABOR 6? ?Disciplinary actions? are de?ned in ABOR as ?involuntary demotion, involuntary dismissal, suspension without pay, and resignation in lieu of dismissal.? The policy further clari?es that only a report of a ??nal action? can be made public. ABOR None of that applies to the investigative report in question. The Report is not a ?disciplinary action? because it does not in any way involve any ?involuntary demotion, involuntary dismissal, suspension Without pay, resignation in lieu of dismissal; [or] . . . written reprimand? involving Dr Slater. There is nothing ?nal about it. Indeed, the Report does not mention an?hing about any disciplinary action being taken against Dr. Slater. IABURG 5 amemmwoxoeoqoxmn-mwwo The public may have a right to know that an employee was suspended, demoted, terminated, or resigned. However, as the ABOR policies make clear, the public does not have a right to review every allegation that was ever lodged against a university employee. That is why disclosure is limited to the narrow subset of documents that con?rm a demotion, termination, or resignation. The public is certainly not entitled to see 38 pages of allegations made against Dr. Slater, especially given ABOR 1?119, which states, ?All Board and university employees who, in their administrative capacity, receive reports of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation shall maintain the confidentiality of the information they receive.? The UofA did exactly what ABOR policy prohibits. The UofA has all but admitted that the Report is not a ?disciplinary action.? As alleged in the complaint, on July 13, 2010, the UofA sent a letter to Mr. 'Hammergren (the person who made a public records request for the Report) stating that ?The disclosure of this report was done so in error, contrary to the and practices of the university for release.? (Id. 58; EX. 4 to Complaint). The UofA?s Vice President of Communications, Chris Sigurdson, told the media that the Report was ?not to be a public record? but that ?somebody forgot or screwed up? and released it anyway. (Id. 1 122; EX. 5 to Complaint). The University refused to release the Report in response to a public records request sent by counsel for Dr. Slater on March 30, 2016. (Id. 123?26 and EX. 17-18 to Complaint). The University stated in response that it ?does not release records of complaint investigations because doing so would be contrary to the best interests of the state and compromise the privacy interests of the complaining individuals and witnesses.? (Id. ii 125; EX. 18 to Complaint). On this record, the University admitted it violated its own policies, and there are clear polices that the University did violate. At the very minimum, there are fact questions here that should not be decided on a motion to dismiss. 4 55 -- r. 5 .5555.i-. 5.1.3553 HI. THE NEGLIGENCE CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, EITHER. The Court dismissed the negligence claim because it found that ?as there was no duty of con?dentiality, it was not negligent of ABOR to release the report.? (March 17, 2017 ruling p. 2). As discussed, UofA did owe a duty of con?dentiality pursuant to the ABOR Policy Manual. Accordingly, the Court should allow the negligence claim to proceed as well. IV. CONCLUSION. We request that the Court reconsider its ruling dismissing the breach of con?dentiality and negligence Claims because the Court was mistaken as to a breach of university policy. DATED this 18551 day oprril, 2017. JABURG WILK, RC. Kraig J. Marton Kraig J. Marton Jeffrey A. Silence 3200 N. Central Avenue, 20th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85012 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Copy of the foregoing eflled and emailed this 18t day of April, 2017, to: Mark Brnovich Attorney General Rachel Remes Rachel .remesfcaazag. gov Assistant Attorney General 1275 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2926 Attorneys for Defendant By Kim Rogers Policy Number: 1-119 Policy Name: Nondiscrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy Revision Dates: 6/12, 09/10 Page 1 1?1 19 Nondiscrimination and Anti-Harassment A. The Policy The Arizona Board of Regents and the universities are committed to creating and maintaining a university system with an environment free from unlawful discrimination, including harassment, and retaliation. In SUpport of this commitment, the Board and the universities prohibit unlawful discrimination, harassment, and retaliation based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, genderidentity, and genetic information. The Board and Universities will take prompt and appropriate action to: (1) thoroughly investigate complaints under this policy; and (2) prevent, correct and, if necessary, discipline individuals who engage in behavior that violates this policy. Appli'mtion of Policy 1. This policy applies to all Board and univerSity employees In all aspects of their employment relationship with the Board or universities; all university students in all aspects of their relationShip with the universities; ?all Board or University applicants, whether for employment or for admission to educational programs, all persons participating in or accessing Board or university sponsored programs and activities; and all vendors, contractors, or volimteers in all aspects of their relationships with the Board or Universities. Each university president and the President ofthe Board shall maintain policies and procedures to address, investigate, and remedy complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation as prohibited by this policy. The Board and the universities shall provide reasonable accommodations for religious practices and for persons with disabilities as required by law. - Enforcement of this Policy is subject to constitutional protections related to freedom of speech, association, and the press. Additionally, an individual?s complaint ?led with any outside agency Rev. 06/2012 Policy Number: 1-119 Policy Name: Nondiscrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy Revision Dates: 6/12, 09/10 Page 2 C. De?nitions 1.. will not affect any Board or University investigation concerning the same or similar events. Discrimination Discrimination is defined in federal and state law. In general, unlawful discrimination is a failure to treat persons equally if the motivation for treating a person differently is based, at least in part, on a status protected under applicable law or policy. Harassment Harassment is a specific form of discrimination. For purposes of this policy, harassment is unwelcome behavior, based on a protected classi?cation, that is suf?ciently severe or pervasive to create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for academic pursuits, employment, or participation in Board or university sponsored programs or activities. Additionally, sexual harassment, whether between individuals of the same or different sex, includes unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that is made, either explicitly or implicitly, a condition of an individual?s education, employment, or participation in Board or university sponsored programs or activities, or the submission to or rejection of such conduct is a factor in decisions affecting that individual's education, employment, or participation in Board or university Sponsored programs or activities. Examples of conduct that may, if severe or pervasive, constitute sexual harassment may include but are not limited to the following: a. Sexual Violence, which includes physical sexual acts perpetrated against a person?s will or where a person is incapable of giving consent due to the use of drugs or alcohol, due to an intellectual or other disability, or due to age. This can include rape, sexual assault, sexual battery, and sexual coercion; b. Unwelcome physical or implied sexual advances, or requests Rev. 06/2012 Policy Number: 1-119 Policy Name: Nondiscrimination and Anti?Harassment Policy Revision Dates: 6/12, 09/10 Page 3 for sexual favors; c. Unwelcome inappropriate physical touching, kissing, or brushing up or rubbing against another; d. Unwelcome sexually suggestive or degrading jokes, comments, or insults, or gestures; e. Voyeurism (which occurs while observing others in a state of full or partial undress or engaged in sexual activity) or non- consensual photographing or audio or video recording of another, or publishing or disseminating such materials; or f. The inappropriate display or circulation of sexually explicit materials such as photos, pictures, posters, magazines, cartoons, or statements, whether in printed or electronic form. 3. Retaliation Retaliation in the context of non?discrimination and anti?harassment occurs when an adverse action is taken against an individual for engaging in protected activity. Protected activity consists of: (1) opposing conduct reasonably believed to constitute discrimination, including harassment, which violates an employment or education discrimination statute or which board or university policy prohibits; or (2) ?ling a complaint about such practice; or (3) testifying, assisting, or participating in any manner in an investigation or other proceeding related to a discrimination complaint. Adverse actions that are reasonably likely to deter a complaining individual or others from engaging in protected activity are prohibited. Responsibilities 1. All individuals identi?ed in Section 8.1. of this policy are responsible for participating in creating and maintaining a workplace and/or educational environment free from all forms of prohibited discrimination, including harassment and retaliation, and for Rev. 06/2012 Policy Number: 1?1 19 Policy Name: Nondiscrimination and Anti?Harassment Policy Revision Dates: 6/12, 09/10 Page 4 cooperating with board and university of?cials who investigate allegations of violations ofthis policy. 2. Individuals charged with supervisory authority are required to engage in appropriate measures to prevent violations of this policy. Individuals charged with supervisory authority who are informed of or who have a reasonable basis to believe that a violation of this policy has occurred are required to report it to the individual or of?ce designated by each university president or, if applicable, the Board?s executive director for investigation. Supervisory inaction may be cause for disciplinary action. 3. An individual believing that he or she has been subjected to discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in violation ofthis policy should report the matter immediately to the university in accordance with the policies and procedures in place at that university. Complaints about alleged violations ofthis policy by any board employees should be reported to the President of the Board or, if that is not practicable, to the general counsel or the Chair of the Board. 4. Each University shall maintain at least one Title IX Coordinator to assist with complaints with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. E. con?dentiality All Board and University employees who, in their administrative Capacity, receive reports of discrimination,harassment, or retaliation shall maintain the confidentiality of the information they receive, except where disclosure? is required by law or is necessary to facilitate legitimate Board or' university precesses, including the reporting, investigation, and resolution- of discrimination, harassment, or retaliationallegations. Rev. 06/2012 Policy Number: 6?912 Policy Name:Access to or Disclosure of Personnel Records or Information Policy Revision Dates: 09/12, 12/08, 2/88 Page 1 Neither the Board of Regents nor the umversrties under the jurisdiction or the Board shall disclose or permit access to; personnel records or information except :as authorized by this policy or as requ1red by law A. Employee Access On request, an employee or a person authorized by the employee in writing may review and obtain copies of documents from the employee's own personnel file, subject to reasonable and speci?c procedures established and administered by each university. Administrative Access 1. All personnel, employment or related records shall be available only to authorized users for authorized purposes. The president of the institution or the president's designee has ?nal authority to determine what administrative uses and purposes are authorized pursuant to this policy. Any unauthorized access, release or use of personnel information shall constitute employee misconduct. 2. As determined by the president of the institution, authorized of?cers, employees or agents ofthe Board or of any institution under the jurisdiction of the Board may have access to and may disclose personnel records or information as necessary in the prosecution, defense or resolution of any hearing or dispute regarding personnel matters. This paragraph is a supplement to, and shall not be construed as a limitation of, paragraph 8.1 above. {Access to or disclosure cf personnel records or information from those records shall not be provided to individuals or agencies other than those jdeSIgnated __by the unrversrties under this policy, except as follows 1 The foliowmg information regarding present or former employees may be disclosed Rev. 11/12 Policy Number: 6-912 Policy NamezAccess to or Disclosure of Personnel Records or Information Policy Revision Dates: 09/12, 12/08, 2/88 Page 2 Name Fact: 10f. 'empib'ym?ht? Dates ofempioymentand (n Access to personnel records or disclosure of personnel information may be provided after legitimate expectations of privacy are considered. Personnel records may be disclosed when necessary to protect the interests of the institution when the institution believes the actions of the individual violate the conditions of employment or othenrvise threaten injury to the institution or to others, to a properly identi?ed law enforcement authority when the institution reasonably believes that an applicant, employee or former employee may have engaged in illegal activities, or pursuant to a federal, state or local government statute or regulation that specifically requires disclosure of certain information to certain parties. Access to certain personnel records or disclosure of personnel information may be provided in response to a lawfully issued administrative summons, search warrant, or judicial order or subpoena, provided that: legal counsel has reviewed the matter and approved disclosure; and if the request is not issued on behalf of the affected employee(s), a reasonable effort has been made to notify the affected employee(s) of the request prior to compliance. the institution receiving a summons or subpoena may seek a protective order to prevent disclosure of certain documents, such as promotion and tenure ?les, letters solicited from Rev. 11/12 Policy Number: 6?912 Policy Name:Access to or Disclosure of Personnel Records or Information Policy Revision Dates: 09/12, 12/08, 2/88 Page 3 outside reviewers who were given a promise of con?dentiality, and performance evaluations, on the basis that a quali?ed privilege exists to protect those documents in the employee evaluation system for making determinations of employee retention and the granting of tenured or continuing status. PbiRde The university?s custodian of records, in consultation with university legal counsel, shall review and respond to requests for disclosure of personnel records in aCcordance with state law. To the extent reqtiired by? A ?39 128 records maintained by the Board or a univerSIty that are reasonably iinecessary to maintain an accurate knowledge of employee .EdISCIphnary actions -.Wi_ll be open to Inspection and copying, igunless inspection or disclosure of the records or Information in the records is contrary to law "If a universaty receives request under public records law for} employee records it will make reasonable efforts to proviide notice to affected employees and ascertain what if- any,- privacy interests emst D. Disc1plinary Action means Involuntary demotion involuntary dismissal suspensron Without pay, and reSIQnation in lieu or and far classif ed staff under progresswe :written reprimands [?Records maintained by the Board or _a that are {reasonably necessary to maintain an accurate knowledge of. femployee dissiplinary actions mean the ?nal written diSCiplmary action and the employee 3 response if any, to that actzon Rev. 11/12 Policy Number: 6-912 Policy NamezAccess to or Disclosure of Personnel Records or Information Policy Revision Dates: 09/12, 12/08, 2/88 Page 4 E. This policy does not require disclosure of any individual?s home address, home telephone number or photograph, or any information that may subject an individual to the risk of identity theft. Rev. 11/12 Michael Jeanes, Clerk of Cof Electronically Filed S. Bagnall,__D_eputy 4/28/2017 12:31:00 PM Filing TD 8292473 Mark Brnovich Attorney General Rachel Remes, Bar No. 016117 Assistant Attorney General 1275 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007?2926 Telephone: (602) 542?7750 Facsimile: (602) 542?7644 Rachel .Remes@azag. gov Attorneys for Defendant connr or ARIZONA MAmcorA COUNTY TIMOTHY SLATER, Case No: ANSWER TO vs. COMPLAINT ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS, a (Assigned to The Honorable Kerstin legally established agency and political LeMaire) subdivision of the State of Arizona, Plaintiff, Defendant. Defendant Arizona Board of Regents (??Defendant? or ?les its Answer to Plaintiff?s Complaint. As to the matters asserted in the Complaint, Defendant admits, denies, alleges, and states as follows: 1. Answering Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief about Plaintiff?s residency, and on that basis Defendant denies the allegation. 2. Answering Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, Defendant denies that ABOR is a State agency. Defendant states that ABOR is a constitutionally?created body corporate with statutorily~def1ned powers and duties and jurisdiction and control over the State?s universities. Defendant denies any remaining allegations. n't 3. Answering Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that AB OR is a constitutionally?created body corporate with statutorily?defined powers and duties set forth in A.R.S. 15?1625 and 15-1626, and that it is a governing board that maintains the State?s universities described in A.R.S. 15?1601. Defendant denies the remaining allegations. 4. Answering Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that venue is proper in Maricopa County. Defendant denies that this action was brought on behalf of the State pursuant to A.R.S. 12?40107). 5 . Answering Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that Plaintiff has summarized his claims asserted in this action. Defendant denies any and all liability to Plaintiff for those claims. 6. Answering Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s description of his career, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 7. Answering Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 8. Answering Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 9. Answering Paragraph 9 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 10. Answering Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 11. Answering Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 12. Answering Paragraph 12 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that the University of Arizona recruited Timothy Slater to develop a teacher preparation program for high school science teachers. 13. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint. l4. Answering Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that Timothy Slater received tenure at the University of Arizona in May 2004, and that he received notice of the tenure decision on April 16, 2004. 15. Answering Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiffs allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 16. Answering Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 17. Answering Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 18. Answering Paragraph 18 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 19. Answering Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 20. Answering Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 21. Answering Paragraph 21 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 22. Answering Paragraph 22 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiffs allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 23. Answering Paragraph 23 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 24. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint. 25. Answering Paragraph 25 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that Timothy Slater?s January 22, 2008 resignation letter stated that he was leaving the University of Arizona for an endowed professorship at the University of Wyoming, and that the University of Arizona accepted his resignation. 26. Answering Paragraph 26 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiffs allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 27. Answering Paragraph 27 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 28. Answering Paragraph 28 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiffs allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 29. Answering Paragraph 29 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 30. Answering Paragraph 30 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 31. Answering Paragraph 31 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff? allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 32. Answering Paragraph 32 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 33. Answering Paragraph 33 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiffs allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 34. Answering Paragraph 34 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 35. Answering Paragraph 35 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 36. Answering Paragraph 36 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that in 2004, the University of Arizona?s Equal Opportunity and Af?rmative Action Of?ce began an investigation into allegations of a sexually~hostile work environment and retaliation in the Department of Astronomy and Steward Observatory. Defendant also admits that the identified Plaintiff as the Respondent based on information it had obtained early in its investigation. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 36. 37. Answerng Paragraph 37 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that the initiated an Administrative Review after several individuals had approached the to report that they had experienced sexually-charged and retaliatory conduct in 5?4 r?d I?t I?t put the Department of Astronomy and Steward Observatory. Defendant also admits that those individuals refused to ?le complaints because they feared retaliation. Defendant further admits that the received a forrnal investigation request from leadership of the Department of Astronomy and Steward Observatory. Defendant denies the remaining allegations. 38. Answering Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that the prepared an Investigative Report, which staff signed. on March 31, 2005. Defendant denies the remaining allegations. 39. Answering Paragraph 39 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that Exhibit 1 to the Complaint appears to be a true and accurate copy of the Investigative Report. 40. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint. 41. Answering Paragraph 41 of the Complaint, Defendant admits the report states that ?several individuals approached the to discuss sexually charged conduct that they were experiencing in the College of Astronomy and Steward Observatory.? Defendant denies the remaining allegations. 42. Defendant denies that the allegations in Paragraph 42 accurately or completely re?ect the content of the Scope of Investigation set forth in the Investigative Report. 43. Answering Paragraph 43 of the Complaint, Defendant denies that the Investigative Report ?fails? to identify the witnesses interviewed. Defendant states that the intentionally identi?ed certain witnesses in the Investigative Report by letter instead of by their names. 44. Answering Paragraph 44 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that the Investigative Report refers to Witnesses A through K, and it denies the remaining allegations. 45. Answering Paragraph 45 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that the Investigative Report summarizes information that Dr. Slater and various witnesses provided to the during its investigation. Defendant denies the remaining allegations. 46. Answering Paragraph 46 of the Complaint, Defendant admits the Investigative Report reflects the determination that Dr. Slater had conducted himself in a sexual manner, his conduct was unwelcome and unsolicited to some individuals, pervasive, and constituted a violation of the University of Arizona?s sexual harassment and hostile work environment policies. Defendant denies the remaining allegations. 47. Answering Paragraph 47 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that the interviewed Dr. Slater during its investigation. Defendant denies the remaining allegations. 48. Answering Paragraph 48 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 49. Answering Paragraph 49 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 50. Answering Paragraph 50 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff beliefs, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 51. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 51 of the Complaint. 52. Answering Paragraph 52 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that, with the exception of redactions, Exhibit 2 to the Complaint appears to be a copy of Mr. Hammergren?s public records request to the University of Arizona. 53. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 53 of the Complaint. 54. Answering Paragraph 5 4 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that, with the exception of redactions, Exhibit 3 to the Complaint appears to be a copy of the Universit of Arizona?s letter res onse to Mr. Hammer ren?s ublic records re uest. Cl 55. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint. 56. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint. 57. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 57 of the Complaint. 58. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 58 of the Complaint. 59. Answering Paragraph 59 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that, with the exception of redactions, Exhibit 4 to the Complaint appears to be a copy of the University of Arizona? July 13, 2010 letter to Mr. Hammergren. 60. Answering Paragraph 60 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that the cited Congressional record re?ects Congresswoman Jackie Speier?s statements about allegations of sexual harassment at Cal Tech and UC Berkeley, astronomer Geoff Marcy and Timothy Slater, and portions of the Investigative Report. Defendant denies that this record supports Plaintiffs remaining allegations. 61. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 61 of the Complaint. 62. Answering Paragraph 62 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 63. Answering Paragraph 63 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that most, (but not all) of the quoted material appears in the document attached as Exhibit 5 to the Complaint. Defendant also admits that Exhibit 5 states that its authors are Tom Bea] and Curt Prendergast of the Arizona Daily Star. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to either admit or deny that the ?Arizona Daily Star out of Tucson issued? Exhibit 5 to the Complaint. 64. Answering Paragraph 64 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that Exhibit 5 to the Complaint appears to be an article dated January 12, 2016 that was printed from http://tucsoncom. 65. Answering Paragraph 65 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that Exhibits 6 and 7 to the Complaint are documents purporting to be news articles by the Washington Post and Science Magazineorg. Defendant denies that the articles contain 00m] CKD U1 the same ?story?. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 66. Answering Paragraph 66 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that Exhibit 6 appears to be an article from a article, and Exhibit 7 appears to be an article from the website, wwsciencernagorg . 67. Answering Paragraph 67 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that a video entitled ?Congresswoman Speier on Sexism in Science? is available on and that she mentions Timothy Slater in the video. Defendant denies any remaining allegations. 68. Answering Paragraph 68 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiffs allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 69. Answering Paragraph 69 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff argument, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 70. Answering Paragraph 70 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 71. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 71 of the Complaint. 72. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 72 of the Complaint. 73. Defendant?s responses to Paragraphs 73i through 73xv of the Complaint are set forth below, and are based on the Investigative Report. i. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 73i. Defendant states that Dr. Slater admitted that he gave a pickle or cucumber?shaped vibrator to a graduate student, but he did not recall giving out chocolate handcuffs. ii. iv. vi. vii. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 73ii. Defendant states that Dr. Slater admitted that he gave a pickle or cucumber? shaped vibrator to a graduate student, but he did not recall giving out chocolate handcuffs. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph Defendant states that Dr. Slater did not recall saying that he would install cameras in his home. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 73iv, and on that basis, it denies them. Defendant states that Dr. Slater described himself as ?sexually overt? and he tended ?to say a lot of sexual things.? Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 73v, and on that basis, it denies them. Defendant states that Dr. Slater did not believe he had excluded a colleague from an invitation to swim at his home because he is not exclusionary by nature. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 73vi. Defendant states that Dr. Slater did not recall telling a colleague that she would teach better without underwear. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 73vii. Defendant states that Dr. Slater did not recall telling a colleague that she would look better without underwear, and he did not recall touching her underwear. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph Defendant states that Dr. Slater admittedly went to a strip club with graduate students, subordinate employees, and colleagues once per month, and he usually offered to purchase lap dances for others. 10 $.00 NJ Ch L11 421- D) ix. xi. xii. xiv. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 73ix. Defendant states that Dr. Slater admitted that he told Witness about his ?personal sexual record.? Dr. Slater also asked Witness whether his sexual banter was acceptable. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 73x. Defendant states that Dr. Slater did not recall making speci?c sexual comments to Witness C, but he believed some of the alleged statements sounded like something he might say. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 73xi, and on that basis, it denies them. Defendant states that Dr. Slater admittedly stopped to look at women, and he commented on their appearance. He described this as a common practice that occurred ?anywhere from one-to~ten~to-a hundred times.? Defendant also states that the found no violation of policy, and it concluded that the evidence failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph. 73xii, and on that basis, it denies them. Defendant states that Dr. Slater admittedly stopped to look at women, and he commented on their appearance. He described this as a common practice that occurred ?anywhere from one?to?ten?to? a hundred times.? Answering Paragraph Defendant admits that Dr. Slater denied to the that Witness B?s non?renewal was in any way related to sexual harassment complaints against him. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 73xiv, and on that basis, it denies them. Defendant states that Dr. Slater admittedly went to a strip 11 r?l I?-club with graduate students, subordinate employees, and colleagues once per month, and he usually offered to purchase lap dances for others. xv. Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 73xv, and on that basis, it denies them. Defendant states that Dr. Slater described himself as ?sexually overt? and he tended ?to say a lot of sexual things.? 74. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 74 of the Complaint. 75. Answering Paragraph 75 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information about Plaintiff?s alleged beliefs in order to admit or deny the allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 76. Answering Paragraph 76 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that the Investigative Report re?ects the conclusion that Dr. Slater had conducted himself in a sexual manner, that his conduct was unwelcome and unsolicited to some, pervasive, and constituted a violation of policy prohibiting sexual harassment and a sexually-hostile work environment. 77. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 77 of the Complaint. Defendant states that during the investigation, Dr. Slater was afforded an opportunity on three separate occasions to provide information and to respond to the allegations against him. 78. Answering Paragraph 78 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that the Investigative Report states that staff interviewed three individuals who denied experiencing any sexually?harassing conduct from the Plaintiff. Defendant denies any remaining allegations. 79. Answering Paragraph 79 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that the Investigative Report at page 1 3 states that staff interviewed three individuals who denied experiencing any sexually?harassing conduct from the Plaintiff. Defendant denies any remaining allegations. 12 80. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 80 of the Complaint. 8l. Answering Paragraph 81 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth. or falsity of Plaintiffs allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 82. Answering Paragraph 82 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief about the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 83. Answering Paragraph 83 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief about the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 84. Answering Paragraph 84 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief about the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 85. Answering Paragraph 85 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief about the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 86. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 86 of the Complaint. 87. Defendant denies that allegations in Paragraph 87 of the Complaint. 88. Answering Paragraph 88 of the Complaint, Defendant denies Plaintiffs allegation that the Investigative Report contains false and misleading statements. As to each of the allegations in Paragraphs 88i though 88xiv, Defendant provides its responses below. i. Answering the allegations in Paragraph 88i of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information to form a belief about their truth or falsity, and on that basis Defendant denies them. ii. Answering the allegations in Paragraph 88ii of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information to form a 13 00 w] U1 41> U.) iv. vi. Vii. ix. belief about their truth or falsity, and on that basis Defendant denies them. Answering the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information to form a belief about their truth or falsity, and on that basis Defendant denies them. Answering the allegations in Paragraph 88b? of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information to form a belief about their truth or falsity, and on that basis Defendant denies them. Answering the allegations in Paragraph 88V of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information to form a belief about their truth or falsity, and on that basis Defendant denies them. Answering the allegations in Paragraph 88Vi of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information to form a belief about their truth or falsity, and on that basis Defendant denies them. Answering the allegations in Paragraph 88Vii of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information to form a belief about their truth or falsity, and on that basis Defendant denies them. Answering the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information to form a belief about their truth or falsity, and on that basis Defendant denies them. Answering the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information to form a 14' Xi. xii. xiv. belief about their truth or falsity, and on that basis Defendant denies them. Answering the allegations in Paragraph 88X of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information to form a belief about their truth or falsity, and on that basis Defendant denies them. Answering the allegations in Paragraph 88Xi of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief about their truth or falsity, and on that basis Defendant denies them. Answering the allegations in Paragraph 88xii of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information to form a belief about their truth or falsity, and on that basis Defendant denies them. Answering the allegations in Paragraph of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief about their truth or falsity, and on that basis Defendant denies them. Answering the allegations in Paragraph 88Xiv of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief about their truth or falsity, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 89. Answering Paragraph 89 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 90. Answering Paragraph 90 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 15 l--t l?l b?v?l p?n i?l oo al.ts.) 91. Answering Paragraph 91 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf? cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 92. Answering Paragraph 92 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 93. Answering Paragraph 93 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 94. Answering Paragraph 94 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff? allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 95. Answering Paragraph 95 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 96. Answering Paragraph 96 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 97. Answering Paragraph 97 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 98. Answering Paragraph 98 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 99. Answering Paragraph 99 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 16 100. Answering Paragraph 100 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiffs allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 101. Answering Paragraph 101 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suffi cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiffs allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 102. Answering Paragraph 102 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that, on June 1, 2016, Plaintiff served a Notice of Claim on the Arizona Board of Regents pursuant?to A.R.S. 12-82101. Defendant denies the remaining allegations. 103. Answering Paragraph 103 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suffi cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiffs allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 104. Answering Paragraph 104 of the Complaint, Defendant admits that more than 60 days have passed since the Arizona Board of Regents received Plaintiffs Notice of Claim, and that Defendant has denied the claim. As to any remaining allegations, Defendant denies them. 105. Answering Paragraph 105 of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiffs breach of con?dentiality claim set forth in Count One of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required Defendant incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 104 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein. 106. Answering Paragraph 106 of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiffs breach of confidentiality claim set forth in Count One of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies Plaintiffs allegations. 107. Answering Paragraph 107 of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiffs breach of con?dentiality 17 claim set forth in Count One of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies Plaintiff?s allegations. 108. Answering Paragraph 108 of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiff?s breach of con?dentiality claim set forth in Count One of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies that Paragraph 108 contains an accurate or complete quotation of Arizona Administrative Code Section Defendant also denies that Arizona Administrative Code Section 05 is applicable to this case because the Arizona Board of Regents and the of?cers and employees of the University of Arizona are exempt from this provision. 109. Answering Paragraph 1. 09 of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiffs breach of confidentiality claim set forth in Count One of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant admits that Paragraph 109 contains an accurate quotation of Arizona Administrative Code Section Defendant denies that Arizona Administrative Code Section has any application in this case because the Arizona Board of Regents and the officers and employees of the University of Arizona are exempt from this provision. 110. Answering Paragraph 110 of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiff?s breach of confidentiality claim set forth in Count One of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies Plaintiff? allegations. 111. Answering Paragraph 111 of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiff breach of con?dentiality claim set forth in Count One of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies Plaintiff allegations. 11.2. Answering Paragraph 112 of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiffs breach of con?dentiality 18 claim set forth in Count One of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies Plaintiff?s allegations. A. Answering Paragraph 112A of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiff?s breach of con?dentiality claim set forth in Count One of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant admits that Paragraph 112A contains an accurate quotation from Arizona Administrative Code Section and denies that it has any application in this case. Answering Paragraph 112B of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiff? breach of confidentiality claim set forth in Count One of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant admits that Paragraph 112B contains an accurate, partial quotation of Arizona Administrative Code Section and denies that it has any application in this case. Answering Paragraph 112C of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiff?s breach of confidentiality claim set forth in Count One of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant admits that Paragraph 112C contains an accurate, partial quotation of Arizona Administrative Code Section and denies that it has any application in this case. 113. Answering Paragraph 113 of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiff?s breach of con?dentiality claim set forth in Count One of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies that Paragraph 113 contains an accurate quotation of Arizona 19 Board of Regents Policy Number and denies the truth and accuracy of the remaining allegations. 114. Answering Paragraph 1 14 of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiff?s breach of con?dentiality claim set forth in Count One of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant admits that the Investigative Report is not considered disciplinary action under Arizona Board of Regents Policy Number Defendant denies the remaining allegations. 115. Answering Paragraph .115 of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiffs breach of con?dentiality claim set forth in Count One of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant admits that the Investigative Report does not address disciplinary action that would be taken against the Plaintiff. 116. Answering Paragraph 1 16 of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiffs breach of con?dentiality claim set forth in Count One of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant admits that the Investigative Report is not considered disciplinary action under Arizona Board of Regents Policy Number and denies the remaining allegations. 117. Answering Paragraph 117 of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiff breach of con?dentiality claim set forth in Count One of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies that Paragraph 117 contains an accurate quotation of Arizona Board of Regents Policy Number and denies the remaining allegations. 118. Answering Paragraph 1 18 of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiff?s breach of con?dentiality claim set forth in Count One of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies Plaintiff?s allegations. 20 119. Answering Paragraph 119 of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiff?s breach of con?dentiality claim set forth in Count One of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant admits that Paragraph 119 contains an accurate, partial quotation of 42 U.S.C. Defendant denies that 42 U.S.C. 2000e?8(e) is applicable to this case. 120. Answering Paragraph 120 of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiff breach of con?dentiality claim set forth in Count One of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant admits that Paragraph 120 contains an accurate quotation of 29 C.F.R. 1611.10 and denies that it is applicable to this case. 121. Answering Paragraph 121 of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiff breach of confidentiality claim set forth in Count One of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies Plaintiff?s allegations. Defendant also denies that 42 U.S.C. 2000e-8(e) and 29 CPR. 1611.10 are applicable to this case. 122. Answering Paragraph 122 of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiff?s breach of confidentiality claim set forth in Count One of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies that Exhibit 4 is an article from WTucsoncom. Defendant admits that an article reported Mr. Si gurdson?s statement that the Investigative Report was determined under the permissible balancing test not to be subject to a public records release, such reports may be kept con?dential to protect complainants and witnesses from acts including unlawful retaliation, and that it was inadvertently released. 123. Answering Paragraph 1. 23 of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiff?s breach of con?dentiality 21 claim set forth in Count One of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant admits Plaintiff?s allegations. 124. Answering Paragraph 124 of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiff3 breach of con?dentiality claim set forth in Count One of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant admits that Exhibit 17 to the Complaint appears to be a public records request that Plaintiff? attorney sent to the University of Arizona Coordinator for Public Records. 125. Answering Paragraph 125 of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiff?s breach of con?dentiality claim set forth in Count One of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant admits that Paragraph 125 contains an accurate, partial quote from a letter dated April 13, 2016, from the University of Arizona?s Public Records Coordinator to Plaintiff attorney. 126. Answering Paragraph 126 of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiffs breach of confidentiality claim set forth in Count One of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant admits Plaintiff?s allegations. 127. Answering Paragraph 127 of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiff? breach of confidentiality claim set forth in Count One of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies Plaintiff?s allegations. 128. Answering Paragraph 128 of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiff breach of con?dentiality claim set forth in Count One of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies Plaintiff?s allegation that the University of Arizona breached any duty of confidentiality to Plaintiff. Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and 22 00 a] UI UJ-N r? information to ascertain the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 129. Answering Paragraph 129 of the Complaint, Defendant incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 128 of this Answer, as though fully set forth herein. 130. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 130 of the Complaint. 131. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 131 of the Complaint. 132. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 132 of the Complaint. 133. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 133 of the Complaint. 134. Answering Paragraph 134 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 135. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 135 of the Complaint. 136. Answering Paragraph 136 of the Complaint, Defendant incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 135 of this Answer, as though fully set forth herein. 137. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 137 of the Complaint. 138. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 138 of the Complaint. 139. Answering Paragraph 139 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 140. Answering Paragraph 140 of the Complaint, Defendant incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 139 of this Answer, as though fully set forth herein. 141. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 141 of the Complaint. 142. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 142 of the Complaint. 143. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 143 of the Complaint. 144. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 144 of the Complaint. 145. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 145 of the Complaint. 23 146. Answering Paragraph 146 of the Complaint, Defendant lacks suf?cient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiff?s allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. 147. Answering Paragraph 147 of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiffs Negligence claim set forth in Count Five of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 146 of this Answer, as though fully set forth herein. 148. Answering Paragraph 148 of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiff?s Negligence claim set forth in Count Five of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies Plaintiff allegations. 149. Answering Paragraph 149 of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiff?s Negligence claim set forth in Count Five of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies Plaintiff?s allegations. 150. Answering Paragraph 150 of the Complaint, Defendant states that no response is required because the Court dismissed Plaintiff?s Negligence claim set forth in Count Five of the Complaint (Doc. 19). To the extent a response is required, Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge and information upon which to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of Plaintiffs allegations, and on that basis Defendant denies them. GENERAL DENIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendant denies each and every allegation alleged in the Complaint unless specifically admitted in this Answer. For its separate, alternative, and affirmative statements and defenses to the Complaint, Defendant alleges as follows: The claims and prayers for relief asserted in the Complaint are subject to dismissal for the failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 24 mumm-hmwwococumm-mei?o Some or all of Plaintiffs claims may be barred by his failure to satisfy the requirements set forth in Arizona?s Notice of Claim statute. Some or all of Plaintiff?s claims may be barred by his failure to file and serve the Complaint within the applicable statute of limitations. The alleged defamatory statements are legally?protected and privileged. The alleged defamatory statements are true and/or substantially true. To the extent Plaintiff is deemed a public ?gure or a limited public figure, and/or his claims touch on matters of public concern, Plaintiff cannot meet the corresponding burden of proof on his claims. Plaintiff cannot demonstrate actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. Plaintiff cannot demonstrate intent to defame him. The alleged wrongdoing does not relate to Plaintiff? solitude, private matters or concerns. - Consent is a complete defense to Count Four of Plaintiff" Complaint. Some or all of Plaintiff?s alleged. damages claims may be limited or reduced by his failure to mitigate them. Plaintiffs claims may be barred by other af?rmative defenses contemplated by Rules 8 and 12 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. The extent to which Plaintiff?s claims may be barred by one or more of such af?rmative defenses cannot be determined until Defendant has had an Opportunity to complete discovery. Therefore Defendant incorporates all such af?rmative defenses as though fully set forth herein. WHEREFORE, having fully answered Plaintiff?s Complaint, Defendants pray that: 1. Plaintiff?s Complaint be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice and that the Plaintiff take nothing thereby; 2. That judgment be entered in the Defendant?s favor on all of Plaintiff? 3 claims; 25 3. That the Court award Defendant its costs and reasonable attorneys? fees incurred in defending this action; and 4. For all other relief the Court deems just and proper. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 28th day of April, 2017. Mark Brnovieh Attorney General s/Rachel Remes Rachel Remes Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Defendant E??led through and a copy e?served this 28th day of April, 2017, to: Kraig J. Marton Jeffrey A. Silence Jaburg Wilk, RC. 3200 N. Central Avenue 20th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Attorneys for Plaintiff Deb Czaikowski #5542064 26 Michael K. Jeanes, Clerk of Court Electronically Filed 03/16/2017 8:00 AM SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV 2016?013953 03/15/2017 CLERK OF THE COURT HONORABLE KERSTIN LEMAIRE A. Arnold Deputy TIMOTHY SLATER KRAIG MARTON v. ARTZONA BOARD OF REGENTS RACHEL M.B. REMES RULING The Court has considered the fully briefed Arizona Board of Regents? Partial Motion to Dismiss Counts One and Five of the Complaint as well as the applicable case law, statutes and rules of Court. In considering this motion, the Court considers all the factual allegations in the complaint to be true. In analyzing the Motion to Dismiss, the Court takes all the material allegations in. the complaint to be true and reads them in the manner most favorable to Plaintiffs. Fidelity Security Life Insurance Co. v. State of Arizona, Dept. of Ins. 191 Ariz. 222, 954 P.2d 580 998). Nor will the Court grant the motion unless no relief would be available under any state of the facts. Mohave Disposal, Inc. v. City of Kingrnan, 186 Ariz. 343, 922 P.2d 308 (1996). As currently plead, Plaintiff fails to Show that under Arizona law, albeit statute or common law, the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) breached his right to con?dentiality by the release of an investigative reports pursuant to a public records request. After reviewing the various legal authorities cited by Plaintiff in his response, the Court ?nds that none of them entitle him to damages for actions. None of the statutes, regulations, or policies cited applied to ABOR. Thus Count One of the Complaint fails to properly state a claim for breach of con?dentiality. Docket Code 019 Form Page 1. SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV 2016?013953 03/15/2017 As for Count Five, as there was no duty of con?dentiality, it was not negligent of ABOR to release the report. Thus, IT IS ORDERED granting the Partial Motion to Dismiss Counts One and Five of the Complaint. However, should Plaintiff believe that he can amend said counts to properly show that a speci?c law, statute or provision of the common law was breached, he may have leave to amend his complaint by April 14, 2017. Docket Code 019 Page 2 Mohael K. eanes, Clerk of Court Electronically Filed 05/03/2017 8:00 AM SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV 2016?013953 05/02/2017 CLERK OF THE COURT HONORABLE KERSTIN LEMAIRE C. Mai Deputy OTHY SLATER KRAIG MARTON v. ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS RACHEL MB. REMES MINUTE ENTRY The Court has considered Plaintiffs Motion to Reconsider Dismissal of Claims for Breach of Con?dentiality and Negligence. The Court will allow Defendants to respond by May 19, 2017. No reply shall be ?led. Docket Code 023 Form V000A- Page 1