Case ECF No. 106 filed 12/07/17 PageiD.2920 Page 26 of 33

USAG owed no legal duty to these plaintiffs as a matter of law, this Court should
dismiss those plaintiffs? claims against USAG.

2. USAG had no duty to warn MS U, Twisters, or others of the
reported concerns about Nasser.

Even though USAG reported Nassar to the FBI, Plaintiffs
allege that USAG had a duty to also report its concerns to MSU, Twisters, or others
in July 2015, after USAG terminated Nassar. See PageID.5684 at 1[ 200;
PagelD.5854-5855 at 1] 1411. But this theory is squarely foreclosed by the Michigan
Supreme Court?s opinion in Murdock. There, the court held that an employer does
not have a duty to report information about an employee?s dangerous prOpensities
to a subsequent employer. The court noted that while Michigan common law
creates a quali?ed privilege to disclose dangerous actions or violent tendencies of
past employees to prospective employers, ?the privilege does not transform such
discretionary disclosures into mandatory acts.? Murdock, supra at 644.

The Michigan Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion in Moore
1). St. Joseph Nursing Home, Inc, 459 100, 103 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
There, the court rejected the notion that an employer has a common law duty to
disclose malefic information about a former employee to another employer. The
court noted that if any duty were to be created, it would have to be created
legislatively, and not judicially. Id. While Michigan?s Child Protection Law, Mich.
Comp. Laws 722.621 et seq., does require certain ?mandated reporters? to report
suspected child abuse to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services,

see Mich. Comp. Laws USAG is not a mandated reporter. Id. And
19