You are on page 1of 232

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT


_______________________________________________________

APPEAL NO. 17-11888


APPEAL NO. 17-12134
APPEAL NO. 17-12376
_________________________________________________________

NAUSHEEN ZAINULABEDDIN
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

v.

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA, BOARD OF TRUSTEES


DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
_________________________________________________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA (TAMPA DIVISON)
CASE NO. 8:16-cv-00637 (Hon. James S. Moody)
____________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF APPENDIX
VOLUME V OF XII: DOCKET 23.6 (cont.) to 29.1
(Pages A-820 TO A-1023)
___________________________

APPELLANT
Nausheen Zainulabeddin
4730 South Woodlawn Ave. Apt 3D
Chicago, IL 60615
nausheenkhawaja@gmail.com

Pro Se
INDEX

VOL. Tab Date Title Page


numbers
A-
I 2 1/22/16 Complaint filed in the Circuit 1-58
Court of the 13th Judicial
Circuit in and for Hillsborough
County, Florida
I 2-1 1/22/16 Dkt. 2 Exhibit A 59-64

I 2-2 1/22/16 Dkt. 2 Exhibit B 65-167


I 2-3 1/22/16 Dkt. 2 Exhibit C 168-169
I 2-4 1/22/16 Dkt. 2 Exhibit D 170-171
I 2-5 1/22/16 Dkt. 2 Exhibit E 172-175
I 2-6 1/22/16 Dkt. 2 Exhibit F 176-178
I 2-7 1/22/16 Dkt. 2 Exhibit G 179-180
I 1 3/17/16 Defendant Notice of Removal 181-186
I 1-1 3/17/16 Dkt. 1 Exhibit B: Summons 187-190
I 1-2 3/17/16 Dkt. 1 Exhibit C: Notice of 191-193
Appearance
I 1-3 3/17/16 Dkt. 1 Exhibit D: Designation 194-196
of E-mail Addresses
I 1-4 3/17/16 Dkt. 1 Exhibit F: Civil Cover 1971-198
Sheet
I 4 3/24/16 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 199-209
and for more Definite
Statement and Supporting
Memorandum of Law
II 6 3/30/16 Plaintiff’s Response in 210-222
Opposition to Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss and for
more Definite statement, with

i
Incorporated Memorandum of
Law
II 6-1 3/30/16 Dkt. 6 Exhibit A 223-228
II 9 4/06/16 Case Management and 229-231
Scheduling Order
II 10 4/13/16 Order: Denial of Dkt. 4 232-240
II 11 4/27/16 Defendant’s Answer, Defenses, 241-272
and Affirmative Defenses
II 12 09/08/16 Unopposed Motion to 273-275
Withdraw and for Substitution
of Counsel
II 14 11/09/16 Order Referring Case to 276-280
Mediation and Directing
Selection of a Mediator
II 15 11/29/16 Joint Motion for Enlargement 281-284
of the Discovery and
Dispositive Motion Deadlines
II 17 12/09/16 Notice of Mediator Selection 285-286
and Scheduling of Mediation
II 18 12/13/16 Order Appointing Mediator and 287-288
Scheduling Mediation
II 19 02/01/17 Plaintiff Partially Opposed 289-294
Motion to take Deposition of
Dr. Joanne Valeriano-Mercent
Subsequent to close of
discovery with incorporated
statement of good cause
wherefore
II 19-1 02/01/17 Dkt. 19 Exhibit A: Plaintiff’s 295-297
Notice of Taking Deposition of
Dr. Joanne Valeriano-Marcet
II 20 02/02/17 Granted Order of Dkt. 19 298-299
II 21 02/03/17 Joint Motion to Extend 300-302
Mediation Deadline

ii
II 22 02/04/17 Defendant’s Motion for 303-326
Summary of Judgement
II 23 02/04/17 Defendant’s Notice of Filing 327-328
Deposition Transcripts In
Support of Its Motion for
Summary of Judgement
II & III 23-1 02/04/17 Dkt. 23 Exhibit A, Volume I: 329-448
Plaintiff’s Deposition
Transcript and Exhibits
III 23-2 02/04/17 Dkt. 23 Exhibit A, Volume II: 449-563
Plaintiff’s Deposition
Transcript and Exhibits
III & IV 23-3 02/04/17 Dkt. 23 Exhibit B Deposition 564-650
Transcript of Dr. Deborah Roth
and Exhibits
IV 23-4 02/04/17 Dkt. 23 Exhibit C: Deposition 651-737
Transcript of Dr. Ambuj Kumar
and Exhibits
IV 23-5 02/04/17 Dkt. 23 Exhibit D: Deposition 738-810
Transcript of Dr. Saundra Stock
and Exhibits
IV &V 23-6 02/04/16 Dkt. 23 Exhibit D: Additional 811-871
documents
V 25 02/09/16 Notice of Withdrawal of 872-873
Plaintiff’s Motion to Take
Deposition of Dr. Joanne
Valeriano-Mercet
V 26 02/19/17 Plaintiff’s Statement of 874-885
Disputed Material Facts
V 26-1 02/19/17 Dkt. 26 Exhibit A 886-893
V 26-2 02/19/17 Dkt. 26 Exhibit B 894-898
V 26-3 02/19/17 Dkt. 26 Exhibit C 899-907
V 27 02/19/17 Plaintiff’s Response in 908-927
Opposition to Defendant’s

iii
Motion for Summary
Judgement
V 28 02/19/17 Plaintiff’s Notice of Filing 928-929
Affidavit in Support of
Plaintiff’s Response in
Opposition to Defendant’s
Motion for Summary
Judgement
V 28-1 02/19/17 Dkt. 28 Affidavit of Plaintiff 930-956
V 28-2 02/19/17 Dkt. 28 Exhibit A, B, C, D, 957-972
V 28-3 02/19/17 Dkt. 28 Exhibit E 973-980
V 28-4 02/19/17 Dkt. 28 Exhibit F, G, H, 981-995
V 28-5 02/19/17 Dkt. 28 Exhibit I, J, K, L 996-1018
V 29 02/19/17 Plaintiff’s Notice of Filing 1019-1020
Deposition of Steven Specter in
support of Plaintiff’s Response
in Opposition to Defendant’s
Motion for Summary
Judgement
V & VI 29-1 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Deposition of Steven 1021-1203
Specter, Ph.D
VI 29-2 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Plaintiff’s Amended 1204-1209
Notice of Taking Deposition of
Dr. Steven Specter
VI 29-3 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 2 1210
VI 29-4 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 3 1212
VI 29-5 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 4 1214
VI 29-6 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 5 1215
VI 29-7 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 6 1216
VI 29-8 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 7 1221
VI 29-9 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 8 1222
VI 29-10 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 9 1223
VI 29-11 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 10 1225

iv
VI & 29-12 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 11 1242
VII
VII 29-13 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 12 1243
VII 29-14 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 13 1244
VII 29-15 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 14 1251
VII 29-16 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 15 1260
VII 29-17 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 16 1269
VII 29-18 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 17 1270
VII 29-19 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 18 1276
VII 29-20 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 19 1284
VII 29-21 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 20 1285
VII 29-22 02/19/17 Dkt. 29 Exhibit 21 1287
VII 30 02/19/17 Plaintiff’s Notice of Filing 1288
Complete Deposition
Transcript of Dr. Ambuj Kumar
in Support of Plaintiff’s
Response in Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion for
Summary of Judgement
VII 30-1 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Deposition 1290-1362
VII 30-2 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 1 1363
VII 30-3 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 2 1364-1365
VII 30-4 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 3 1366-1371
VII 30-5 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 4 1372-1377
VII 30-6 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 5 1378-1396
VII 30-7 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 6 1397
VII 30-8 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 7 1399
VII 30-9 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 8 1401
VII 30-10 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 9 1402
VII 30-11 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 10 1403
VII 30-12 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 11 1405
VII 30-13 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 12 1406
VII 30-14 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 13 1407

v
VII 30-15 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 14 1408
VII 30-16 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 15 1409
VII 30-17 02/19/17 Dkt. 30 Exhibit 16 1410
VII 31 02/27/17 Joint Motion to Extend 1418
Mediation Deadline
VII 33 03/01/17 Defendant’s Motion for Leave 1421
to reply to Plaintiff’s Response
to Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgement
VII 35 03/07/17 Unopposed Motion to 1424
Withdraw and for Substitution
of Counsel
VII 36 03/08/17 Order Granting Dkt. 35 1427
VII 37 03/15/17 Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s 1428
Response in Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion for
Summary of Judgement
VIII 38 03/18/17 Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to 1437
File Surreply to Defendant’s
Reply Memorandum to
Plaintiff’s Response in
Opposition to Defendant’s
Motion for Summary
Judgement
VIII 40 03/22/17 Mediation Report 1440
VIII 41 03/24/17 Plaintiff’s Surreply to 1442
Defendant’s Reply
Memorandum to Plaintiff’s
Response in Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgement
VIII 41-1 03/24/17 Dkt. 41 Exhibit A 1447
VIII 41-2 03/24/17 Dkt. 41 Exhibit B 1451

vi
VIII 42 04/19/17 Order Granting Summary of 1455-1484
Judgement in Favor of
Defendant
VIII 43 04/20/17 Judgement in Civil Case signed 1485-1486
by Deputy Clerk
VIII 44 04/26/17 Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal to 1487-1488
USCA 11th circuit for Dkt. 42
VIII 46 04/27/17 Transfer of Appeal to USCA 1489-1552
11th Circuit (Dkt. 44).
VIII 47 04/27/17 Application for Leave to 1553-1555
Withdraw as Counsel
VIII 48 05/01/17 Motion for Reconsideration 1556-1581
VIII 48-1 05/01/17 Dkt. 48 Exhibit 1 to Exhibit 14 1582-1641
IX 48-2 05/01/17 Dkt. 48 Exhibit 15 to 32 1642-1720
IX 48-3 05/01/17 Dkt. 48 Exhibit 33 to 43 1721-1806
IX & X 48-4 05/01/17 Dkt. 48 Exhibit 44 to 47 1807-1841
X 48-5 05/01/17 Dkt. 48 Exhibit 48 to 57 1842-1935
X 49 05/01/17 Dkt. 48 Affidavit 1936-1948
X 50 05/01/17 Motion For Recusal 1949
X 50-1 05/01/17 Dkt. 50 Exhibit A to Exhibit I 1973-2042
X 51 05/01/17 Pro Se Motion of Continuance 2043-2046
XI 54 05/03/17 Order Denying Motion for 2047-2049
Reconsideration (Dkt. 48)
XI 55 05/03/17 Defendant’s Motion to Tax 2050-2055
Costs with Verified Bill of
Costs
XI 55-1 05/03/17 Dkt. 55 Exhibit A 2056-2081
XI 56 05/03/17 Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay 2082-2097
District Court Administrative
Proceedings of
(1) Pro Se Motion of
Continuance
(2) Motion for
Reconsideration

vii
(3) Motion of Recusal,
Pending Appeal
XI 56-1 05/03/17 Plaintiff’s Responses and 2098
Objections to Defendant’s First
Set of Interrogatories to
Plaintiff. + Exhibits
XI 59 05/08/17 Directions to Clerk for Notice 2164
of Appeal dated April 26, 2017
XI 59-1 05/08/17 Dkt. 59 Exhibit A 2166
XI 60 05/10/17 Notice of Appeal for Dkt. 57; 2178
dated May 10, 2017
XI 61 05/10/17 IFP of USCA FC 2180
XI 64 05/17/17 Plaintiff Opposition to 2185
Defendant’s Bill of Costs

XI 64-1 05/17/17 Dkt. 64 Exhibit A to E 2199


XI & 64-2 05/17/17 Dkt. 64 Exhibit F 2214
XII
XII 64-3 05/17/17 Dkt. 64 Exhibit G 2300
XII 64-4 05/17/17 Dkt. 64 Exhibit H 2345
XII 64-5 05/17/17 Dkt. 64 Exhibit 2400
XII 64-6 05/17/17 Dkt. 64 Exhibit 2304
XII 66 05/19/17 Order granting Dkt. 64 in favor 2405
of Defendant
XII 67 05/22/17 Bill of Costs 2412
XII 69 05/22/17 Direction to Clerk for Notice of 2413
Appeal dated May 10, 2017
XII 70 05/22/17 Notice of Appeal to USCA FC 2429
and Petition of Review
XII 71 05/22/17 Notice of Appeal for Dkt. 66 2431
dated May 22, 2017
XII 74 05/23/17 Directions to the Clerk; 2433
Transfer Error

viii
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court

Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees


Dashboard

Florida Middle District Court


Judge: James S Moody, Jr
Referred: Thomas G Wilson
Case #: 8:16-cv-00637
Nature of Suit 440 Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights
Cause 29:0794 Job Discrimination (Handicap)
Case Filed: Mar 17, 2016
Terminated: Apr 20, 2017

Docket Parties (2) Related Cases (4) News

Last checked: Tuesday Sep 13, 2016 5:04 AM EDT Update Parties

Defendant
Represented By
University of South Florida Board of Trustees
John F. Dickinson
Constangy, Brooks, Smith, & Prophete, LLP
jdickinson@constangy.com

John Sikes Gibbs


Constangy, Brooks, Smith, & Prophete, LLP
egibbs@constangy.com

J. Ray Poole, Jr.


Constangy, Brooks, Smith, & Prophete, LLP
rpoole@constangy.com

Plaintiff
Represented By
Nausheen Zainulabeddin
Stanley Robert Apps
Stanley R. Apps, P.A.
stan.apps@gmail.com

0:17-prici-11888 - Nausheen Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Bo 04/27/2017

0:17-prici-12134 - Nausheen Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Bo 05/11/2017

https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 1/15
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court

0:17-prici-12376 - Nausheen Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Bo 05/24/2017

0:17-cvpri-02083 - Zainulabeddin v. USF Board of Trustees 05/25/2017

Navigation Edit Alert

Docket last updated: 09/01/2017 11:59 PM EDT Update Now

Friday, July 28, 2017

82 appeal USCA Mandate Fri 12:08 PM


MANDATE of USCA for the Federal Circuit terminating appeal as to70 Notice of appeal filed by Nausheen
Zainulabeddin Issued as Mandate: 7/27/17 USCA number: 17-2083 ML. (JNB)

81 appeal USCA order Fri 12:07 PM


ORDER of USCA for the Federal Circuit:. The motion to acknowledge Ms. Zainulabeddin's filing as timely31 is
granted. The petition for panel rehearing30 is denied. All other pending motions28 3233 are denied as moot.
No further motions will be docketed or considered as to70 Notice of appeal filed by Nausheen Zainulabeddin.
EOD: 7/27/17; USCA number: 17-2083 ML. (JNB)

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

80 3 pgs appeal USCA order Tue 11:57 AM

ORDER of USCA filed terminating appeal; denying as moot motion to allow efiling19 filed by Appellant
Nausheen Zainulabeddin; denying as moot motion for other relief15 filed by Appellant Nausheen
Zainulabeddin, denying as moot motion for other relief11 filed by Appellant Nausheen Zainulabeddin; denying
as moot motion to correct document14 filed by Appellant Nausheen Zainulabeddin; denying as moot motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis7 filed by Appellant Nausheen Zainulabeddin; denying as moot motion
to correct or supplement record on appeal4 filed by Appellant Nausheen Zainulabeddin. Each side shall bear
its own costs as to70 Notice of appeal filed by Nausheen Zainulabeddin. EOD: 6/20/17; USCA number: 17-
2083 ML. (JNB)

Thursday, June 08, 2017


79 appeal Designation of Record on Appeal Fri 2:55 PM
DESIGNATION of Record on Appeal (Directions to the Clerk) by Nausheen Zainulabeddin re71 Notice of
appeal.(AG)

Att: 1 Mailing Envelope

Monday, June 05, 2017

https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 2/15
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court

78 4 pgs notice Notice (Other) Tue 3:49 PM

NOTICE to the clerk of corrections needed of docketing errors - May 10, 2017 thru Mary 31, 2017 by
Nausheen Zainulabeddin.(AG)

Att: 1 Exhibit,
Att: 2 Exhibit,
Att: 3 Mailing Envelope

77 2 pgs order Order on motion to supplement Mon 9:12 AM

ORDER denying 63 Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal. Signed by Judge James S.
Moody, Jr. on 6/5/2017. (LN)

Wednesday, May 31, 2017


appeal Transmittal to USCA Wed 8:43 AM
TRANSMITTAL to USCA forwarding Order granting appeal in forma pauperis re71 Notice of appeal,60 Notice
of appeal USCA number: 17-11888 G and 17-12134 C. (BSN)

Tuesday, May 30, 2017


76 order Order on motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency Tue 5:37 PM
ORDER granting 72 Motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency. Signed by Magistrate
Judge Thomas G. Wilson on 5/30/2017. (Wilson, Thomas)

75 5 pgs respm Response in Opposition to Motion Tue 5:01 PM

RESPONSE in Opposition re63 MOTION to supplement Record on Appeal and support for Motion and
Declaration for leave to proceed In Forma Pauperis (issues on appeal, Dkt. 61) to Magistrate Judge filed by
University of South Florida Board of Trustees. (Mans, Lori)

appeal Transmittal to USCA Tue 10:21 AM


TRANSMITTAL to USCA forwarding Order granting In Forma Pauperis re60 Notice of appeal USCA number:
17-12134 C. (BSN)

Wednesday, May 24, 2017


73 56 pgs appeal Transmittal of initial appeal package Wed 3:18 PM

TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet,
order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re70 Notice of appeal,71 Notice of appeal.
(KMM)

appeal Transmittal to USCA Wed 2:47 PM


TRANSMITTAL to USCA forwarding Order granting appeal in forma pauperis re44 Notice of appeal USCA
number: 17-11888 G. (BSN)

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 3/15
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court

74 4 pgs notice Notice (Other) Wed 3:23 PM

DIRECTIONS TO THE CLERK by Nausheen Zainulabeddin. (BSN)

68 order Order on motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency Tue 6:02 PM
ORDER granting 61 Motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency. Signed by Magistrate
Judge Thomas G. Wilson on 5/23/2017. (Wilson, Thomas)

Monday, May 22, 2017


72 motion Appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency Wed 3:10 PM
MOTION for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency by Nausheen Zainulabeddin. (KMM)

71 2 pgs appeal Notice of appeal Wed 3:09 PM

NOTICE OF APPEAL to USCA as to66 Order on Motion for Taxation of Costs by Nausheen Zainulabeddin.
Filing fee not paid. (KMM)

70 2 pgs appeal Notice of appeal Wed 3:07 PM

NOTICE OF APPEAL to Federal Circuit as to42 Order on motion for summary judgment,54 Order on Motion for
ReconsiderationOrder on motion for recusal by Nausheen Zainulabeddin. Filing fee not paid.(KMM)

Att: 1 2 pgs Petition for Review

69 16 pgs notice Notice (Other) Wed 3:03 PM

Directions to the Clerk, by Nausheen Zainulabeddin (KMM)

67 1 pgs misc Bill of costs Mon 8:30 AM

BILL OF COSTS taxed against Plaintiff in the amount of $5,382.15. Signed by Deputy Clerk. (AD)

Friday, May 19, 2017


66 7 pgs order Order on Motion for Taxation of Costs Fri 10:56 AM

ORDER: Defendant's Motion to Tax Costs 55 is granted in part and denied in part as explained herein.
Defendant is entitled to $5,382.15 in costs. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a Bill of Costs in the amount
of $5,382.15 in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 5/19/2017.
(LN)

Wednesday, May 17, 2017


65 misc Certificate of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement Thu 10:05 AM
CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement re3 Related case order and track 2
notice by Nausheen Zainulabeddin. (BSN)

64 14 pgs respm Response in Opposition to Motion Thu 10:03 AM

RESPONSE in Opposition re55 MOTION for Taxation of Costs with Verified Bill of Costs and Supporting
Memorandum of Law filed by Nausheen Zainulabeddin.(BSN)

Att: 1 19 pgs Exhibit A-E,

https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 4/15
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court

Att: 2 99 pgs Exhibit F,

Att: 3 45 pgs Exhibit G,

Att: 4 55 pgs Exhibit H,


Att: 5 3 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 6 3 pgs Exhibit,


Att: 7 2 pgs Exhibit

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

63 19 pgs motion Supplement Tue 3:55 PM

MOTION to supplement Record on Appeal and support for Motion and Declaration for leave to proceed In
Forma Pauperis (issues on appeal, Dkt. 61) to Magistrate Judge by Nausheen Zainulabeddin.(BSN)

Att: 1 38 pgs Exhibit A,


Att: 2 101 pgs Exhibit 1,

Att: 3 102 pgs Exhibit 2,


Att: 4 112 pgs Exhibit 3,

Att: 5 161 pgs Exhibit 4,

Att: 6 126 pgs Exhibit 5,


Att: 7 72 pgs Exhibit 6,

Att: 8 100 pgs Exhibit 7,


Att: 9 87 pgs Exhibit 8,

Att: 10 141 pgs Exhibit 9,

Att: 11 91 pgs Exhibit 10,


Att: 12 130 pgs Exhibit 11,

Att: 13 139 pgs Exhibit 12

Wednesday, May 10, 2017


62 15 pgs appeal Transmittal of initial appeal package Thu 10:52 AM
TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet,
order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re60 Notice of appeal. (BSN)

61 5 pgs motion Appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency Thu 10:44 AM

MOTION for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency by Nausheen Zainulabeddin.(BSN)


Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson.

Att: 1 84 pgs Exhibit

https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 5/15
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court

60 2 pgs appeal Notice of appeal Thu 10:43 AM

NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 57 Order on motion to stay,54 Order on Motion for Reconsideration Order on
motion for recusal by Nausheen Zainulabeddin. Filing fee not paid. (BSN)

Monday, May 08, 2017

59 2 pgs appeal Designation of Record on Appeal Tue 4:58 PM

DESIGNATION (Directions to the Clerk) of Record on Appeal by Nausheen Zainulabeddin re44 Notice of
appeal(AG)

Att: 1 12 pgs Exhibit A

Friday, May 05, 2017


appeal Transmittal to USCA Fri 8:11 AM
TRANSMITTAL to USCA forwarding ORDER granting Motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of
indigency re44 Notice of appeal USCA number: 17-11888 G. (KMM)

Thursday, May 04, 2017


58 order Order on motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency Thu 4:21 PM
ORDER granting 45 Motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency. Signed by Magistrate
Judge Thomas G. Wilson on 5/4/2017. (Wilson, Thomas)

57 order Order on motion to stay Thu 1:57 PM


ENDORSED ORDER denying as moot 56 motion to stay. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 5/4/2017.
(LN)

Wednesday, May 03, 2017

56 16 pgs motion Stay Thu 10:57 AM

MOTION to stay documents re48 ,49 ,50 and51 pending appeal by Nausheen Zainulabeddin.(BSN)

Att: 1 66 pgs Exhibit

55 6 pgs motion Taxation of Costs Wed 5:26 PM

MOTION for Taxation of Costs with Verified Bill of Costs and Supporting Memorandum of Law by University of
South Florida Board of Trustees.(Mans, Lori) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson.

Att: 1 26 pgs Exhibit Motion to Tax Costs Exhibit A

54 3 pgs order Order on Motion for Reconsideration Order on motion for recusal Wed 1:04 PM

ORDER denying 48 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 50 Motion for Recusal. Signed by Judge James S.
Moody, Jr. on 5/3/2017. (LN)

53 order Order on Motion to Continue Wed 11:18 AM


ENDORSED ORDER denying 51 Motion to Continue. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 5/3/2017. (LN)

https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 6/15
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court

52 order Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney Wed 11:17 AM


ENDORSED ORDER granting 47 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Stanley Robert Apps terminated.
Pro se Plaintiff's address of record is 4409 W. Varn Avenue, Tampa, FL 33616. Signed by Judge James S.
Moody, Jr on 5/3/2017. (LN)

Tuesday, May 02, 2017

51 4 pgs motion Continue Wed 10:49 AM

MOTION to Continue by Nausheen Zainulabeddin. (BSN)

Monday, May 01, 2017

50 23 pgs motion Recusal Tue 12:48 PM

MOTION for Recusal by Nausheen Zainulabeddin.(BSN)

Att: 1 70 pgs Exhibit A-F

49 13 pgs misc Affidavit Tue 12:47 PM

AFFIDAVIT of Nausheen Zainulabeddin re:48 MOTION for Reconsideration re43 Judgment by Nausheen
Zainulabeddin. (BSN)

48 26 pgs motion Reconsideration Tue 12:46 PM

MOTION for Reconsideration re43 Judgment by Nausheen Zainulabeddin.(BSN)

Att: 1 60 pgs Exhibit 1-14,

Att: 2 79 pgs Exhibit 15-32,

Att: 3 89 pgs Exhibit 33-43,


Att: 4 129 pgs Exhibit 44-57

Thursday, April 27, 2017

47 3 pgs motion Withdraw as Attorney Thu 7:58 PM

MOTION for Stanley R. Apps to withdraw as attorney for the Plaintiff, Nausheen Zainulabeddin, based upon
her election to proceed pro se by Stanley Robert Apps. (Apps, Stanley) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge
Thomas G. Wilson.

46 64 pgs appeal Transmittal of initial appeal package Thu 9:41 AM

TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet,
order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable to USCA re44 Notice of appeal. (BSN)

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

45 5 pgs motion Appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency Thu 9:14 AM


MOTION for leave to appeal in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency by Nausheen Zainulabeddin.(BSN)
Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson.

Att: 1 30 pgs Exhibit

https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 7/15
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court

44 2 pgs appeal Notice of appeal Thu 9:13 AM

NOTICE OF APPEAL as to42 Order on motion for summary judgment by Nausheen Zainulabeddin. Filing fee
not paid. (BSN)

Thursday, April 20, 2017


43 2 pgs misc Judgment Thu 9:07 AM

JUDGMENT in favor of University of South Florida Board of Trustees against Nausheen Zainulabeddin (Signed
by Deputy Clerk) (BSN)

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

42 30+ pgs order Order on motion for summary judgment Wed 4:07 PM

ORDER: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 22) is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to
enter final judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff. After entry of final judgment, the Clerk of Court
is directed to close this case and terminate any pending motions as moot. Signed by Judge James S. Moody,
Jr. on 4/19/2017. (AD)

Friday, March 24, 2017

41 5 pgs respm Memorandum in opposition Fri 12:18 PM

MEMORANDUM in opposition re37 Reply to Response to Motion Plaintiff's Surreply to Defendant's Reply to
Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Nausheen
Zainulabeddin.(Apps, Stanley)

Att: 1 4 pgs Exhibit A,

Att: 2 4 pgs Exhibit B

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

40 2 pgs adr Mediation report Wed 3:04 PM

MEDIATION report Hearing held on 3/22/2017. Hearing outcome: IMPASSE. (Shulman, Christopher)

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

39 order Order on Motion for Leave to File Tue 1:14 PM


ENDORSED ORDER granting 38 Motion for Leave to File Surreply. Surreply shall be filed within seven (7) days
of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 3/21/2017. (LN)

Saturday, March 18, 2017

38 3 pgs motion Leave to File Document Sat 2:57 AM

MOTION for leave to file Surreply of no more than 5 pages to Defendant's Reply Memorandum to Plaintiff's
Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by Nausheen Zainulabeddin. (Apps,
Stanley)

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 8/15
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court

37 9 pgs respm Reply to Response to Motion Wed 2:00 PM

REPLY to Response to Motion re22 MOTION for summary judgment filed by University of South Florida Board
of Trustees. (Mans, Lori)

Wednesday, March 08, 2017

36 1 pgs order Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney Thu 5:27 PM

ORDER granting 35 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney and for Substitution of Counsel. Attorney J. Ray Poole,
Jr., terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson on 3/8/2017. (DMS)

Tuesday, March 07, 2017

35 3 pgs motion Withdraw as Attorney Tue 5:00 PM

MOTION for J. Ray Poole to withdraw as attorney and for Substitution of Counsel and Supporting
Memorandum of Law by University of South Florida Board of Trustees. (Dickinson, John)

Wednesday, March 01, 2017

34 order Order on Motion for Leave to File Wed 3:43 PM


ENDORSED ORDER granting 33 Motion for Leave to File Reply. Reply is limited to 10 pages and shall be filed
within 14 days. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 3/1/2017. (LN)

33 3 pgs motion Leave to File Document Wed 2:28 PM

MOTION for leave to file Reply to Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment by University of South Florida Board of Trustees. (Poole, J.)

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

32 order Order on motion to extend time Tue 9:16 AM


ENDORSED ORDER granting 31 Joint Motion to extend time to conduct Mediation until MARCH 22, 2017.
Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 2/28/2017. (LN)

Monday, February 27, 2017

31 3 pgs motion Extend time Mon 4:23 PM

Joint MOTION to extend time to conduct Mediation until March 22, 2017 by Nausheen Zainulabeddin. (Apps,
Stanley)

Sunday, February 19, 2017

30 2 pgs notice Notice (Other) Sun 6:40 PM

NOTICE by Nausheen Zainulabeddin re27 Response in Opposition to Motion,23 Notice (Other) Notice of Filing
COMPLETE Deposition Transcript of Dr. Ambuj Kumar, M.D., including Exhibit omitted by Defendant(Apps,
Stanley)

Att: 1 86 pgs Exhibit Deposition of Ambuj Kumar, MD,


Att: 2 1 pgs Exhibit,

https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 9/15
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court

Att: 3 2 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 4 6 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 5 6 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 6 19 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 7 2 pgs Exhibit,


Att: 8 2 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 9 1 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 10 1 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 11 2 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 12 1 pgs Exhibit,


Att: 13 1 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 14 1 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 15 1 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 16 1 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 17 8 pgs Exhibit

29 2 pgs notice Notice (Other) Sun 6:15 PM

NOTICE by Nausheen Zainulabeddin re27 Response in Opposition to Motion Notice of Filing Deposition
Transcript of Dr. Steven Specter, Ph.D.(Apps, Stanley)

Att: 1 182 pgs Exhibit Deposition of Steven Specter,

Att: 2 6 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 3 2 pgs Exhibit,


Att: 4 2 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 5 1 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 6 1 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 7 6 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 8 1 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 9 1 pgs Exhibit,


Att: 10 2 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 11 17 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 12 1 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 13 1 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 14 7 pgs Exhibit,

https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 10/15
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court

Att: 15 9 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 16 9 pgs Exhibit,


Att: 17 1 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 18 6 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 19 8 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 20 1 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 21 2 pgs Exhibit,


Att: 22 1 pgs Exhibit

28 2 pgs notice Notice (Other) Sun 5:38 PM

NOTICE by Nausheen Zainulabeddin re27 Response in Opposition to Motion Notice of Filing Affidavit of the
Plaintiff in support of Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Summary Judgment(Apps, Stanley)

Att: 1 27 pgs Affidavit of Nausheen Zainulabeddin,

Att: 2 16 pgs Exhibit,


Att: 3 8 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 4 15 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 5 24 pgs Exhibit

27 20 pgs respm Response in Opposition to Motion Sun 4:13 PM

RESPONSE in Opposition re22 MOTION for summary judgment with supporting Memorandum of Law filed by
Nausheen Zainulabeddin. (Apps, Stanley)

26 12 pgs misc Statement of undisputed facts Sun 4:11 PM

STATEMENT of undisputed facts re:22 MOTION for summary judgment Statement of DISPUTED MATERIAL
FACTS, precluding entry of summary judgment by Nausheen Zainulabeddin..(Apps, Stanley)

Att: 1 8 pgs Exhibit A,

Att: 2 5 pgs Exhibit B,

Att: 3 9 pgs Exhibit C

Thursday, February 09, 2017

25 2 pgs misc Notice of withdrawal of motion Thu 4:00 PM

NOTICE of withdrawal of motion by Nausheen Zainulabeddin re19 MOTION to Take Deposition from Dr.
Joanne Valeriano-Marcet Subsequent to Close of Discovery, with Incorporated Statement of Good Cause
Wherefore filed by Nausheen Zainulabeddin (Apps, Stanley)

Monday, February 06, 2017

https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 11/15
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court

24 order Order on motion to extend time Mon 9:49 AM


ENDORSED ORDER granting 21 Joint Motion to extend time to conduct mediation. Extension granted through
MARCH 1, 2017. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 2/6/2017. (LN)

Saturday, February 04, 2017

23 2 pgs notice Notice (Other) Sat 5:03 PM

NOTICE by University of South Florida Board of Trustees re22 MOTION for summary judgment (Poole, J.)

Att: 1 120 pgs Exhibit Deposition of Nausheen Zainulabeddin,

Att: 2 115 pgs Exhibit Deposition of Nausheen Zainulabeddin Part 2,

Att: 3 87 pgs Exhibit Deposition of Dr. Deborah Roth and Exhibits Thereto,

Att: 4 87 pgs Exhibit Deposition of Dr. Ambuj Kumar and Exhibits Thereto,

Att: 5 73 pgs Exhibit Deposition of Dr. Saundra Stock,


Att: 6 61 pgs Exhibit Deposition of Dr. Saundra Stock and Exhibits Thereto Part 2

22 25 pgs motion Summary judgment Sat 3:49 PM

MOTION for summary judgment by University of South Florida Board of Trustees. (Poole, J.)

Friday, February 03, 2017

21 3 pgs motion Extend time Fri 8:45 PM

Joint MOTION to extend time to Complete Mediation by University of South Florida Board of Trustees. (Poole,
J.)

Thursday, February 02, 2017

20 2 pgs order Order on Motion to Take Deposition Thu 5:30 PM

ORDER granting 19 Motion to Take Deposition of Dr. Joanne Valeriano-Marcet on February 3, 2017. See Order
for further details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson on 2/2/2017. (DMS)

Wednesday, February 01, 2017

19 6 pgs motion Take Deposition Wed 4:43 PM

MOTION to Take Deposition from Dr. Joanne Valeriano-Marcet Subsequent to Close of Discovery, with
Incorporated Statement of Good Cause Wherefore by Nausheen Zainulabeddin.(Apps, Stanley)

Att: 1 3 pgs Exhibit A

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

18 2 pgs order Order appointing mediator/scheduling mediation Tue 9:39 AM

ORDER appointing Christopher M. Shulman as mediator in this action. Mediation Conference set for
FEBRUARY 10, 2017. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 12/13/2016. (LN)

Friday, December 09, 2016

https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 12/15
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court

17 2 pgs adr Notice of selection of mediator Fri 10:32 PM

NOTICE OF SELECTION of Christopher M. Shulman as mediator by University of South Florida Board of


Trustees. (Poole, J.)

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

16 order Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Wed 9:53 AM
ENDORSED ORDER granting 15 the Parties' Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery.
Discovery shall be completed by February 1, 2017. Dispositive Motions are now due February 4, 2017. All
other dates in the Case Management Order remain unchanged. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on
11/30/2016. (RWL)

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

15 4 pgs motion Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Tue 3:53 PM

Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by University of South Florida Board of Trustees.
(Poole, J.)

Wednesday, November 09, 2016

14 5 pgs order Order referring case to mediation Wed 1:55 PM

ORDER referring case to mediation and directing selection of a mediator on or before 12/9/2016. Mediation
shall be conducted on or before 3/1/2017. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 11/9/2016. (LN)

Friday, September 09, 2016


13 order Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney Fri 9:34 AM
ENDORSED ORDER granting 12 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney John Sikes Gibbs terminated.
Attorney John F. Dickinson is directed to file a Notice of Appearance in this case. Signed by Judge James S.
Moody, Jr on 9/9/2016. (LN)

Thursday, September 08, 2016

12 3 pgs motion Withdraw as Attorney Thu 3:57 PM

Unopposed MOTION for Gibbs to withdraw as attorney by University of South Florida Board of Trustees.
(Poole, J.)

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

11 32 pgs answer Answer to Complaint Wed 1:48 PM

ANSWER and affirmative defenses to Complaint by University of South Florida Board of Trustees.(Gibbs, John)

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 13/15
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court

10 9 pgs order Order on motion to dismiss Wed 11:18 AM

ORDER: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and For More Definite Statement 4 is DENIED. Defendant shall file an
answer within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this order. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 4/13/2016.
(LN)

Wednesday, April 06, 2016

9 3 pgs order Case management and scheduling order Wed 10:23 AM

CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 1/3/2017, Dispositive motions due by
2/1/2017, Pretrial Conference set for TUESDAY, MAY 2, 2017 at 9:15 AM in Tampa Courtroom 17 before Judge
James S. Moody Jr., Jury Trial set for JUNE 2017 trial term in Tampa Courtroom 17 before Judge James S.
Moody Jr. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr. on 4/6/2016. (AR)

Monday, April 04, 2016

8 misc Case Management Report Mon 2:02 PM


CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT. (Gibbs, John)

Wednesday, March 30, 2016


7 notice Notice of pendency of related cases Wed 5:23 PM
NOTICE of pendency of related cases re3 Related case order and track 2 notice per Local Rule 1.04(d) by
Nausheen Zainulabeddin. Related case(s): yes (Apps, Stanley)

6 13 pgs respm Response in Opposition to Motion Wed 4:46 PM

RESPONSE in Opposition re4 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and For More Definite Statement and
Supporting Memorandum of Law filed by Nausheen Zainulabeddin.(Apps, Stanley)

Att: 1 6 pgs Exhibit A

Friday, March 25, 2016

5 notice Notice of pendency of related cases Fri 1:15 PM


NOTICE of pendency of related cases per Local Rule 1.04(d) by University of South Florida Board of Trustees.
Related case(s): No (Gibbs, John)

Thursday, March 24, 2016

4 11 pgs motion Dismiss Thu 2:15 PM

MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and For More Definite Statement and Supporting Memorandum of
Law by University of South Florida Board of Trustees. (Gibbs, John)

Monday, March 21, 2016


3 order Related case order and track 2 notice Mon 4:27 PM
RELATED CASE ORDER AND NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 - track 2. Issued by Deputy Clerk
on 3/21/2016. (AR)

https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 14/15
9/2/2017 Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees (8:16-cv-00637), Florida Middle District Court

Thursday, March 17, 2016


2 cmp Complaint Fri 12:03 PM
COMPLAINT against University of South Florida Board of Trustees with Jury Demand filed by Nausheen
Zainulabeddin . Originally filed in state court on 1/22/16.(BSN) Modified on 3/18/2016 (BSN)

Att: 1 Exhibit

1 6 pgs notice Notice of Removal Fri 12:01 PM

NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, case number 16-CA-
000669 filed in State Court on 1/22/16. Filing fee $ 400, receipt number tpa 035597 filed by University of
South Florida Board of Trustees.(BSN)

Att: 1 4 pgs Exhibit,

Att: 2 3 pgs Exhibit,


Att: 3 3 pgs Exhibit,
Att: 4 2 pgs Civil Cover Sheet

Showing All

Last viewed: Sep 02, 2017 2:22 AM EDT

Support • Privacy • Terms • About


PacerMonitor, LLC © 2016. Made in NYC

https://www.pacermonitor.com/case/11005379/Zainulabeddin_v_University_of_South_Florida_Board_of_Trustees 15/15
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 10 of 61 PageID 1016

A-820
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 11 of 61 PageID 1017

A-821
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 12 of 61 PageID 1018

A-822
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 13 of 61 PageID 1019

A-823
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 14 of 61 PageID 1020

A-824
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 15 of 61 PageID 1021

A-825
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 16 of 61 PageID 1022

A-826
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 17 of 61 PageID 1023

A-827
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 18 of 61 PageID 1024

A-828
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 19 of 61 PageID 1025

A-829
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 20 of 61 PageID 1026

A-830
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 21 of 61 PageID 1027

A-831
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 22 of 61 PageID 1028

A-832
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 23 of 61 PageID 1029

A-833
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 24 of 61 PageID 1030

A-834
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 25 of 61 PageID 1031

A-835
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 26 of 61 PageID 1032

A-836
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 27 of 61 PageID 1033

A-837
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 28 of 61 PageID 1034
A-838
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 29 of 61 PageID 1035

A-839
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 30 of 61 PageID 1036

A-840
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 31 of 61 PageID 1037
A-841
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 32 of 61 PageID 1038

A-842
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 33 of 61 PageID 1039

A-843
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 34 of 61 PageID 1040

A-844
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 35 of 61 PageID 1041

A-845
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 36 of 61 PageID 1042

A-846
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 37 of 61 PageID 1043

A-847
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 38 of 61 PageID 1044
A-848
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 39 of 61 PageID 1045

A-849
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 40 of 61 PageID 1046

A-850
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 41 of 61 PageID 1047

A-851
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 42 of 61 PageID 1048
A-852
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 43 of 61 PageID 1049

A-853
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 44 of 61 PageID 1050

A-854
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 45 of 61 PageID 1051

A-855
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 46 of 61 PageID 1052

A-856
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 47 of 61 PageID 1053

A-857
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 48 of 61 PageID 1054

A-858
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 49 of 61 PageID 1055

A-859
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 50 of 61 PageID 1056

A-860
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 51 of 61 PageID 1057

A-861
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 52 of 61 PageID 1058

A-862
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 53 of 61 PageID 1059

A-863
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 54 of 61 PageID 1060

A-864
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 55 of 61 PageID 1061

A-865
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 56 of 61 PageID 1062

A-866
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 57 of 61 PageID 1063

A-867
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 58 of 61 PageID 1064

A-868
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 59 of 61 PageID 1065

A-869
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 60 of 61 PageID 1066

A-870
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 23-6 Filed 02/04/17 Page 61 of 61 PageID 1067

A-871
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 25 Filed 02/09/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1068

A-872
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

NAUSHEEN ZAINULABEDDIN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA


BOARD OF TRUSTEES,

Defendant.
______________________________________/

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO TAKE DEPOSITION
OF DR. JOANNE VALERIANO-MERCET

The Plaintiff, Nausheen Zainulabeddin (“Zainulabeddin”), by and

through her undersigned counsel, hereby withdraws her Motion to Take

Deposition of Dr. Joanne Valeriano-Marcet, filed in this Court on February 1,

2017. The parties have resolved this discovery dispute and no further action by

the Court is required.

! 1!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 25 Filed 02/09/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1069

A-873
Respectfully submitted on this 9th day of February, 2017.

/s/ Stanley R. Apps

Stanley R. Apps, Esq.


FL Bar. No. 0108868
Stanley R. Apps, P.A.
1950 Elkhorn Ct., Unit 147
San Mateo, CA 94403
(310) 709-3966
stan.apps@gmail.com
Attorney for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 9, 2017, I electronically filed the


foregoing with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will
send a Notice of Electronic Filing to all counsel of record herein.

/s/ Stanley R. Apps

! 2!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID 1070

A-874
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

NAUSHEEN ZAINULABEDDIN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA


BOARD OF TRUSTEES,

Defendant.
______________________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

Pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the

Plaintiff, Nausheen Zainulabeddin (“Zainulabeddin”), by and through her

undersigned counsel, hereby files her STATEMENT OF DISPUTED

MATERIAL FACTS, in support of her Response in Opposition to Defendant’s

Motion for Summary Judgment.

Zainulabeddin disputes numerous factual allegations asserted by the

Defendant, the University of South Florida Board of Trustees (“hereinafter

“USF”), and/or asserted by Defendant’s Corporate Designee, Dr. Steven

Specter (“Specter”) or by Defendant’s other employee witnesses, as follows:

1. The University’s reason for readmitting Zainulabeddin to the Morsani

College of Medicine in February 2012:

! 1!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26 Filed 02/19/17 Page 2 of 12 PageID 1071

A-875
Plaintiff alleges: Zainulabeddin believes she was readmitted based on the

error made by Dr. Steven Specter (“Specter” or “Dr. Specter”), who told

her on or about February 8, 2012 that he had given her incorrect

information about the results of her Neuropsychological Evaluation by

Dr. Mike Schoenberg. See Affidavit of Nausheen Zainulabeddin

(hereinafter “Zainulabeddin Aff.”) at 10-11. Specter told Zainulabeddin on

or about February 8, 2012 that he would correct his mistake by arranging

a meeting with the Medical School’s Academic Performance Review

Committee (“APRC”) and that he believed the APRC would reverse

Zainulabeddin’s dismissal from Medical School based on the new

information about Zainulabeddin’s disability status contained in the

Neuropsychological Evaluation.

Defendant alleges: Defendant has asserted two conflicting accounts of this

factual issue, as follows:

a. Defendant’s Objections and Answers to Plaintiff’s Third Set of

Interrogatories state that Zainulabeddin was readmitted to the Medical

School based on the information contained in the Neuropsychological

Evaluation of Zainulabeddin produced by Dr. Mike Schoenberg. See

Defendant’s Objections and Answers to Plaintiff’s Third Set of

Interrogatories (“Answers to Third Interrogatories”), attached hereto

as Exhibit A, at 2. The Answers to Third Interrogatories admit that

! 2!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26 Filed 02/19/17 Page 3 of 12 PageID 1072

A-876
the Neuropsychological Evaluation constituted “new information” that

was provided to the APRC for the first time on or about February 16,

2012, and that the new information justified readmitting

Zainulabeddin to the Medical School. Id. The Answers to Third

Interrogatories further indicate that the Neuropsychological

Evaluation was provided to the APRC by Dr. Specter. Id. Notably this

account is compatible with most elements of the Plaintiff’s allegations.

b. In his capacity as USF’s 30(b)(6) Corporate Designee, Dr. Specter

answered follow-up questions regarding USF’s Answers to Third

Interrogatories. At that time, Specter stated that USF’s Answers to

Third Interrogatories are incorrect because the Neuropsychological

Evaluation by Schoenberg was known to the APRC prior to February

16, 2012. See 30(b)(6) Deposition of Steven Specter, Ph.D. (hereinafter

“Specter Depo”) at 108-114 and Exhibit 1. Specter went on to claim that

the “new information” that justified Zainulabeddin’s readmission in

February 2012 was a new neuropsychological evaluation of

Zainulabeddin produced by an independent evaluator, rather than the

evaluation produced by Mike Schoenberg. Id. at 37-38; 54-55; 97-101;

135-7.

Plaintiff disputes on the following grounds: Zainulabeddin disputes Dr.

Specter’s claims about a new neuropsychological evaluation of her by an

! 3!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26 Filed 02/19/17 Page 4 of 12 PageID 1073

A-877
outside evaluator, allegedly reviewed by the APRC in February 2012, for

two simple reasons. First, no such document existed. Zainulabeddin did

not arrange for a neuropsychological evaluation to be performed by an

outside expert until March 2014, when she was evaluated by Dr. Stefanie

J. Mihalopoulos. See Zainulabeddin Aff. at 16. Second, Zainulabeddin did

not submit any such document in support of her appeal of her dismissal.

Id.

In summary, Specter’s account of why Zainulabeddin was

readmitted to Medical School in February 2012 relies on assertions about

a non-existent document and directly contradicts USF’s Answers to

Plaintiff’s Third Interrogatories. Furthermore, USF did not provide

Zainulabeddin with a verified copy of the Answers to Third

Interrogatories, declared under penalty of perjury, until January 26, 2017,

seven weeks after Dr. Specter was deposed on December 8, 2016. As

such, USF has willfully and deliberately offered two mutually

contradictory accounts of this material factual issue, one through its

30(b)(6) witness and another through its Answers to Interrogatories.

Since both of these conflicting accounts cannot be true, either

USF’s Answers to Third Interrogatories are false or the testimony of

USF’s 30(b)(6) witness is false.

! 4!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26 Filed 02/19/17 Page 5 of 12 PageID 1074

A-878
Why this factual issue is material: USF’s reasons for readmitting

Zainulabeddin in February 2012 are materially important for several

reasons. If USF readmitted Zainulabeddin because the APRC had never

been notified of the results of the Neuropsychological Evaluation by Dr.

Mike Schoenberg, that would support Zainulabeddin’s claim that

Specter gave her incorrect information about the Neuropsychological

Evaluation, admitted his error and claimed he would arrange for her to

be readmitted to correct his mistake. See Zainulabeddin Aff. at 7-12.

Furthermore, if Specter manufactured claims about a non-existent

document at his deposition on December 8, 2016, that would be evidence

of the type of affirmative misconduct needed to support equitable

estoppel as to the statute of limitations on Zainulabeddin’s breach of

fiduciary duties and negligent misrepresentation claims.

2. Whether the University “engaged in the proper administrative process

and follow[ed] the requisite internal procedures” when dismissing

Zainulabeddin from the Doctor of Medicine Program in March 2013, as

asserted in Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Facts. See Dkt. 22 at 5.

Plaintiff alleges: Zainulabeddin alleges that her dismissal was

extraordinary and unwarranted, and departed from proper

administrative process and internal procedures, based on several facts.

! 5!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26 Filed 02/19/17 Page 6 of 12 PageID 1075

A-879
First, Zainulabeddin earned a passing grade in Evidence Based

Clinical Reasoning II (“EBCR II”), one of the two courses she is alleged

by USF to have failed in March 2013, based on her average in that course

and her grade on the final examination. See Zainulabeddin Aff. at 21-23.

Second, USF has failed to retain any record of her final

examination in EBCR II (which was allegedly the reason for her failure

in the course) and stated in its Objections and Answers to Plaintiff’s

Sixth Set of Interrogatories that Zainulabeddin’s grade on that

examination was “Unknown” and that her official percentile score on the

examination was never calculated. See Defendant’s Objections and

Answers to Plaintiff’s Sixth Set of Interrogatories, attached hereto as

Exhibit B, at 2-3.

Third, the course director of EBCR II, Dr. Ambuj Kumar

(“Kumar”), has testified that he assigned Zainulabeddin’s grade in EBCR

II not based on her performance in that course but because an unnamed

“global course director” told him that Zainulabeddin had a “global

deficiency . . . across the board.” See Deposition of Ambuj Kumar, M.D.

(“Kumar Depo.”) at 48-59.

Fourth, Dr. Kumar testified that there was a general policy or

practice at the USF medical school of assigning the grade of “U” for

Unsatisfactory when a student has a global deficiency in multiple classes,

! 6!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26 Filed 02/19/17 Page 7 of 12 PageID 1076

A-880
but this testimony was contradicted by the testimony of another course

director, Dr. Saundra Stock (“Stock”), who directs the Doctoring II

course. Stock testified that statements about a student’s performance in

other courses would not be allowed to influence assignment of grades in

Doctoring II. See Deposition of Saundra Stock, M.D. (“Stock Depo”) at

131-32.

Fifth, Dr. Kumar told Zainulabeddin that her final grade in EBCR

II would be assigned by Dr. Fraser Stevenson, Dr. Specter and the

APRC, rather than by Kumar in his capacity as course director. See

Zainulabeddin Aff. at 21-22.

Sixth, USF’s witnesses admitted that numerous classmates of

Zainulabeddin, who also failed one or both of the two courses she

allegedly failed, were assigned the correctable grade of “T” which

automatically converts to the passing grade of “S” for Satisfactory upon

completion of remediation. See Kumar Depo. at 56-57; Stock Depo. at

69-71. Specifically, fourteen other students who failed EBCR II were

assigned correctable “T” grades, in contrast to Zainulabeddin who was

singled out to receive a “U” grade that could not be corrected by

remediation. Kumar Depo. at 62-63. Similarly, thirty-five other students

who failed Doctoring II were assigned correctable “T” grades, whereas

Zainulabeddin was singled out to receive a “U” grade that could not be

! 7!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26 Filed 02/19/17 Page 8 of 12 PageID 1077

A-881
corrected by remediation. Stock Depo. at 96 and Ex. 15. Thereafter,

Zainulabeddin successfully completed remediation of both courses. See

Defendant’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiff’s First Request for

Admissions, attached hereto as Exhibit C, at 5 (response to Request No.

28). If Zainulabeddin had been treated in the same manner as her

fourteen peers who were assigned “T” grades in EBCR II and her thirty-

five peers who were assigned “T” grades in Doctoring II, her grades

would have converted to the passing grade of “S” upon completing

remediation and she would not have been dismissed from Medical

School.

Based on the discrepancy between Stock and Kumar’s testimony,

together with the lost test grade and the disparate treatment of so many

of Zainulabeddin’s classmates, there is a substantial body of evidence

indicating that USF did not engage in proper administrative process or

follow the requisite internal procedures when dismissing Zainulabeddin

from Medical School in March 2014. Instead the evidence shows that she

was singled out for less favorable treatment than her colleagues, based

on vague allegations that she had a “global deficiency” and that she was

assigned a failing grade in one class, EBCR II, that she believes she

passed, based on a final examination grade that was never recorded and

a final average that was apparently never calculated.

! 8!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26 Filed 02/19/17 Page 9 of 12 PageID 1078

A-882
Why this factual issue is material: If USF did not follow its normal

administrative process and internal procedures when dismissing

Zainulabeddin from the Medical School in March 2014, the failure to do

so strongly supports Zainulabeddin’s claims of disability discrimination

and retaliation for requesting disability accommodations. In particular,

the finder of fact should have an opportunity to assess whether Dr.

Kumar spoke truthfully when he claimed that USF’s Medical School has

a policy of determining whether students will be assigned “U”or “T”

grades based on their performance in other courses. The finder of fact

should also have an opportunity to assess Dr. Kumar’s credibility, based

on the material discrepancies between his testimony and the testimony

of Dr. Stock. Lastly, the finder of fact should be allowed to consider the

evidence that Zainulabeddin was singled out for disparate treatment

when she was assigned two “U” grades, even though fourteen other

students who failed EBCR II and thirty-five other students who failed

Doctoring II were assigned the more favorable correctable grade of “T.”

3. Whether Zainulabeddin was assigned a failing or passing grade on the

midterm assessment in her Doctoring II course.

Plaintiff alleges: Zainulabeddin recalls that she received a grade of “meets

expectations” at her midterm assessment in the Doctoring II course in

! 9!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26 Filed 02/19/17 Page 10 of 12 PageID 1079

A-883
the 2011-12 academic year, contradicting the assertion of Dr. Saundra

stock that Zainulabeddin was assessed as “needs work” and “likely to

fail” on her midterm assessment. See Stock Depo. at 64-65.

Plaintiff disputes on the following grounds: Later in her deposition, Dr.

Stock appeared to reverse her testimony, admitting that Zainulabeddin

did in fact earn a passing grade of “meets expectations” on her midterm

assessment in Doctoring II. Id. at 120-23. Furthermore, Stock

volunteered that the midterm assessment form provided to

Zainulabeddin may have been altered after the fact to produce a record

that would show Zainulabeddin as failing at the time of the midpoint

review. Id. at 121-22.

Why this factual issue is material: It is disturbing that USF apparently

altered the record of Zainulabeddin’s midterm assessment after the fact

to make it appear retroactively that Zainulabeddin had received notice

that her performance was unsatisfactory. Zainulabeddin specifically

contends that she did not receive any such notice, and instead believed

her performance met expectations based on the positive midterm

assessment.

This evidence raises the possibility of a forgery or falsification of

assessment documents by USF’s employees, with the purpose of creating

a false record of academic deficiency regarding Zainulabeddin.

! 10!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26 Filed 02/19/17 Page 11 of 12 PageID 1080

A-884
Furthermore, USF may have committed discovery violations by

providing only the retroactively modified version of the midterm

assessment during discovery.

This evidence also calls into question the credibility of Dr. Stock

and provides further indication that Zainulabeddin’s dismissal from

Medical School was extraordinary and unwarranted, and was not based

on normal administrative process and procedures. Stock’s admission

that assessment documents may have been retroactively modified to

indicate failure is utterly incompatible with normal administrative

procedures. And notably, this is not the only arguably fraudulent

practice at issue in this case.

In summary, the irregular handling of Zainulabeddin’s midterm

assessment in Doctoring II, as described by Dr. Stock, strongly supports

Zainulabeddin’s claim that she was dismissed from USF’s Medical

School based on her disability and/or in retaliation for requesting

disability accommodations, and that the stated reasons for her dismissal

are mere pretexts for discrimination.

! 11!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26 Filed 02/19/17 Page 12 of 12 PageID 1081

A-885
Respectfully submitted on this 19th day of February, 2017.

/s/ Stanley R. Apps

Stanley R. Apps, Esq.


FL Bar. No. 0108868
Stanley R. Apps, P.A.
1950 Elkhorn Ct., Unit 147
San Mateo, CA 94403
(310) 709-3966
stan.apps@gmail.com
Attorney for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 19, 2017, I electronically filed the


foregoing with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will
send a Notice of Electronic Filing to all counsel of record herein.

/s/ Stanley R. Apps

! 12!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID 1082

A-886

Exhibit A
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 2 of 8 PageID 1083

A-887
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 3 of 8 PageID 1084

A-888
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 4 of 8 PageID 1085

A-889
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 5 of 8 PageID 1086

A-890
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 6 of 8 PageID 1087

A-891
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 7 of 8 PageID 1088

A-892
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 8 of 8 PageID 1089

A-893
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID 1090

A-894

Exhibit B
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 2 of 5 PageID 1091

A-895
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 3 of 5 PageID 1092

A-896
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 4 of 5 PageID 1093

A-897
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 5 of 5 PageID 1094

A-898
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1095

A-899

Exhibit C
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 2 of 9 PageID 1096

A-900
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 3 of 9 PageID 1097

A-901
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 4 of 9 PageID 1098

A-902
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 5 of 9 PageID 1099

A-903
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 6 of 9 PageID 1100

A-904
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 7 of 9 PageID 1101

A-905
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 8 of 9 PageID 1102

A-906
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 26-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 9 of 9 PageID 1103

A-907
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 20 PageID 1104

A-908
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

NAUSHEEN ZAINULABEDDIN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA


BOARD OF TRUSTEES,

Defendant.
______________________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO


DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
WITH SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff,

Nausheen Zainulabeddin (“Zainulabeddin”), by and through her undersigned counsel,

hereby files her Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment,

with Supporting Memorandum of Law [Dkt. 22]. In support of her Opposition,

Zainulabeddin further states as follows:

I. OVERVIEW

The Defendant, University of South Florida Board of Trustees (“USF”) seeks

Summary Judgment on all six counts of Zainulabeddin’s Complaint, which are: I. Breach

of Fiduciary Duties by and through USF’s agent, Dean of Student Affairs Dr. Steven

Specter (hereinafter “Specter” or “Dr. Specter”); II. Negligent Misrepresentation by and

through USF’s agent, Dr. Specter; III. Breach of Contract; IV. Unjust Enrichment; V.

Disability Discrimination; and VI. Retaliation for the protected activity of requesting

accommodation of disability.

! 1!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 2 of 20 PageID 1105

A-909
II. CONCESSION

Having had the benefits of Discovery in this matter, Zainulabeddin concedes that

summary judgment in Defendant’s favor is proper as to Plaintiff’s Count III (Breach of

Contract) and her Count IV (Unjust Enrichment).

Specifically, Zainulabeddin concedes that USF is protected from liability as to

her breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims, based on sovereign immunity. In

other words, Zainulabeddin concedes that USF’s failure to honor its representations,

while it would be legally actionable if a private university engaged in the same conduct,

does not give rise to an actionable claim when Defendant USF engages in the same

conduct. This concession should not be read as indicative of reasonable or honorable

behavior by USF—rather it is a recognition of the strong protection from liability

enjoyed by Florida public agencies.

Zainulabeddin opposes Summary Judgment as to her four remaining Counts,

which are Count I (Breach of fiduciary duties by Specter); Count II (Negligent

misrepresentation by Specter); Count V (Disability Discrimination); and Count VI

(Retaliation for requesting disability accommodations).

III. DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (hereinafter the “Motion”)

incorporates five pages of material styled as a “Statement of Undisputed Material Facts.”

See Motion at 3-7. USF’s account of the facts is artfully drafted to elide the many factual

disputes that give rise to this civil action. Most notably, it makes no reference to the

30(b)(6) deposition testimony of Dr. Specter, the agent and employee of USF whose

conduct is challenged in Counts I and II of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

! 2!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 3 of 20 PageID 1106

A-910
However, Dr. Specter’s testimony is materially important, because he repeatedly

contradicts USF’s factual admissions in its Answers to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories. See

Deposition of Steven Specter, Ph.D. (“Specter Depo.”) at 13-14 (statement of Defendant’s

counsel, Mr. Ray Poole, Esq., that Specter will serve as USF’s Corporate Designee in

regards to all topics set forth in the 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice); and see Specter Depo.

Ex. 1 (list of 30(b)(6) topics to be addressed by Specter’s testimony); Specter Depo. at 108-

114 (stating that USF’s Answers to Plaintiff’s Third Set of Interrogatories, Nos. 9, 10 and

11, are incorrect).

Plaintiff has produced her own Statement of Disputed Material Facts to address

and explore the genuine issues of material fact, and related questions of credibility, that

preclude entry of summary judgment in Defendant’s favor. See Plaintiff’s Statement of

Disputed Material Facts (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s Statement”) [Dkt. 26].

Plaintiff’s Statement sets forth the matters stated in Specter’s deposition that are

disputed by Zainulabeddin, as well as her basis for each disputed fact. See Plaintiff’s

Statement at 1-5. Plaintiff’s Statement shows that there is a genuine factual dispute as to

why Zainulabeddin was granted readmission to the Morsani College of Medicine’s

Medical Doctor program (hereinafter “Medical School”) on February 14, 2012. Id. Indeed,

Plaintiff’s Statement shows that there are at least three accounts of why Zainulabeddin

was readmitted to Medical School, two of which were offered by the Defendant, and that

the two accounts offered by Defendant are mutually contradictory. Id. at 2-4.

Pivotally, Plaintiff’s Statement shows that USF willfully and deliberately offered

two mutually contradictory accounts of this material factual issue, one through its

30(b)(6) witness and another through its Answers to Interrogatories. Id. at 4. Specifically,

! 3!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 4 of 20 PageID 1107

A-911
USF failed to serve a verified copy of its Objections and Answers to Plaintiff’s Third Set

of Interrogatories, affirmed under penalty of perjury, until January 26, 2017, three days

before the close of Discovery and seven (7) weeks after Dr. Specter was deposed. Id.; and

see Plaintiff’s Statement Ex. A at 2, 7. Thus, USF reaffirmed its Answers to Plaintiff’s

Third Interrogatories, Nos. 9, 10, and 11, seven weeks after its 30(b)(6) witness, Specter,

stated that those answers were not true.

Furthermore, USF has repeatedly admitted that Zainulabeddin’s readmission to

Medical School in February 2012 was an extraordinary and unusual event, because it

occurred after Zainulabeddin’s appeal of her dismissal had been rejected by the Medical

School’s Academic Performance Review Committee (“APRC”). Compare Specter Depo.

Ex. 4 (decision of APRC rejecting Zainulabeddin’s appeal of her dismissal on February 2,

2012) with Specter Depo. Ex. 9 (decision of APRC readmitting Zainulabeddin on

February 16, 2012). Specifically, Specter admitted that the APRC’s reversal of its earlier

decision represented “a very unusual circumstance actually,” because the normal

procedure would have been a second appeal to the level of the Dean rather than

reconsideration of the first appeal by the APRC. See Specter Depo. at 41-42; 53-54. And

another Medical School faculty member, Dr. Saundra Stock (“Stock” or “Dr. Stock”)

testified it is unusual that Zainulabeddin had three APRC letters pertaining to the same

dismissal, because typically there would be a dismissal letter followed by a letter either

granting or denying the student’s appeal of the dismissal, whereas Zainulabeddin

received a dismissal letter, a letter denying her appeal, and then a third letter reversing

the decision to deny her appeal). See Deposition of Saundra Stock, M.D. (“Stock

Depo.”) at 23-27.

! 4!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 5 of 20 PageID 1108

A-912
To summarize, USF has offered two mutually contradictory accounts of a

disputed factual issue—the rationale for readmitting Zainulabeddin to Medical School in

February 2012—and has admitted that the circumstances of the readmission were “very

unusual” and departed from normal procedures. Notably, one of USF’s accounts, in the

Answers to Interrogatories, tends to support elements of Zainulabeddin’s testimony,

whereas the other (Specter’s account) contradicts all material elements of

Zainulabeddin’s account. See Plaintiff’s Statement at 2-4.

Given this context, USF should be denied summary judgment as to

Zainulabeddin’s claims related to this disputed matter of fact, which are her claims for

Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Count I) and Negligent Misrepresentation (Count II).

Zainulabeddin should have the opportunity to testify that she was readmitted to Medical

School in February 2012 based on the error made by Dr. Specter, who told her on or

about February 8, 2012 that he had given her incorrect information about the results of

her Neuropsychological Evaluation by Dr. Mike Schoenberg. See Affidavit of Nausheen

Zainulabeddin (hereinafter “Zainulabeddin Aff.”) at 10-11. As indicated in her Affidavit,

Zainulabeddin recalls that Specter told her he would correct his mistake by arranging a

meeting with the Medical School’s Academic Performance Review Committee, and that

he believed the APRC would reverse Zainulabeddin’s dismissal from Medical School

based on the new information about Zainulabeddin’s disability status contained in the

Neuropsychological Evaluation. Id.

It would be unjust to grant summary judgment in Defendant’s favor without

giving the finder of fact an opportunity to consider the question of Dr. Specter’s

credibility, especially given that Specter’s account of events relies on the alleged

! 5!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 6 of 20 PageID 1109

A-913
existence of a document (an independent Neurological Evaluation by an outside

evaluator) that did not exist. See Plaintiff’s Statement at 4-5; Zainulabeddin Aff. at 15-17.

Plaintiff’s Statement also describes numerous other facts placed in dispute by the

contradictory testimony of Defendant’s agents and employees. See Plaintiff’s Statement

at 5-11. These other factual disputes call into question the credibility of two more of

Defendant’s witnesses. One of these witnesses, Dr. Ambuj Kumar, claims it was a

normal practice of the Medical School to assign final grades based on students’ alleged

perfomance in other courses. See Plaintiff’s Statement at 6-9; Deposition of Ambuj

Kumar, M.D. (“Kumar Depo.”) at 48-59; but compare with Stock Depo. at 131-32 (stating

that student’s grades in other courses would not be allowed to influence assignment of

grades). Another key witness, Dr. Saundra Stock, appears to admit that a midterm

assessment of Zainulabeddin was retroactively modified to create a false record of

failure. See Plaintiff’s Statement at 9-11; Stock Depo. at 64-65; 120-23.

In addition, Zainulabeddin presents evidence that she did not actually fail one of

the two courses she is alleged to have failed in March 2013. Zainulabeddin Aff. at 21-23;

Kumar Depo. Ex. 16 at 1,5.

Taken as a whole, these factual disputes, and the questions of witness credibility

that arise from them, require resolution by the finder of fact. See Plaintiffs’ Statement

[Dkt. 26] at 5; 9-11.

IV. MEMORANDUM OF LAW

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court should only grant summary judgment “if the movant shows there is no

genuine dispute as to any material fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The Court should “view

! 6!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 7 of 20 PageID 1110

A-914
the evidence and all factual inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-

moving party, and resolve all reasonable doubts about the facts in favor of the non-

movant.” Carter v. City of Melbourne, Fla., 731 F.3d 1161, 1166 (11th Cir. 2013). “Credibility

determinations” should be left to the finder of fact, and evidence presented by the non-

movant should be believed. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

Evidence presented by the movant is entitled to credence only to the extent that it is

“uncontradicted and unimpeached, at least to the extent that that evidence comes from

disinterested witnesses.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 151

(analyzing the standard of review for summary judgment under Rule 56 and for

judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50, which is the same standard), citing 9A C.

Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2529, p. 300 (2d ed. 1995).

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court should review the entire

record but should entirely disregard “all evidence favorable to the moving party that the

jury is not required to believe.” Reeves, 530 U.S. at 151. Where the non-movant

introduces evidence that materially contradicts evidence offered by the movant, the

Court should believe the non-movant’s evidence and may not find that the movant’s

evidence outweighs or overwhelms the evidence offered by non-movant, since to do so

would be to “impermissably substitute [the Court’s] judgment concerning the weight of

the evidence for the jury’s.” Id. at 152-53. The Court’s function in reviewing a summary

judgment motion is “not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the

matter, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S.

at 249. There is a genuine issue for trial when “there is sufficient evidence for a jury to

return a verdict for” the nonmoving party. Id.

! 7!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 8 of 20 PageID 1111

A-915
Once a plaintiff has established a prima facie case of discrimination, summary

judgment for defendant is generally improper, except when evidence of discriminatory

intent is “totally lacking”. Hairston v. Gainesville Sun Pub. Co., 9 F.3d 913, 921 (11th Cir.

1993), citing Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981). On

the issue of pretext, “plaintiff’s burden at the summary judgment stage is met by

introducing evidence that could form the basis for a finding of facts, which when taken

in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, could allow a jury to find by the

preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff has established pretext.” Id.

B. EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Count I and Count II are facially barred by the

applicable statute of limitations. See Motion at 8-9.

Zainulabeddin does not dispute this, but argues that USF is equitably estopped

from asserting the statute of limitations defense, based on USF’s affirmative misconduct,

including fraudulent activity. Specifically, Zainulabeddin asserts that Dr. Specter

arranged for her readmission to Medical School, causing her to forego bringing suit

based on Specter’s earlier negligent misrepresentations. Zainulabeddin Aff. at 12-13.

Thereafter, in April and May 2013, Specter deliberately undertook to be Zainulabeddin’s

advocate as to her second dismissal, but betrayed her trust when he failed to make the

arguments she expected him to make and instead used his appearance as her advocate as

an opportunity to conceal his past misdeeds. Id. at 13-14. Most recently, Specter has

continued to engage in affirmative misconduct that is fraudulent in nature, by referring

repeatedly to a document that does not exist. Id. at 14-16; Plaintiff’s Statement at 3-5.

! 8!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 9 of 20 PageID 1112

A-916
And the discovery process has brought to light arguably fraudulent conduct by other

USF employees as well.

Unlike other defenses to the statute of limitations, the doctrine of equitable

estoppel “is not concerned with the running and suspension of the limitations period,

but rather comes into play only after the limitations period has run and addresses itself

to the circumstances in which a party will be estopped from asserting the statute of

limitations as a defense to an admittedly untimely action because his conduct has

induced another into forbearing suit within the applicable limitations period. Its

application is wholly independent of the limitations period itself and takes its life, not

from the language of the statute, but from the equitable principle that no man will be

permitted to profit from his own wrongdoing in a court of justice. Thus . . . equitable

estoppel operates directly on the defendant without abrogating the running of the

limitations period.” Major League Baseball v. Morsani, 790 So.2d 1071, 1078 (Fla. 2001),

quoting and approving Bomba v. W.L. Belvidere, Inc., 579 F.2d 1067, 1070 (7th Cir.1978).

In Florida Dep’t of Health and Human Services v. S. A. P., 835 So. 2d 1091, 1099-

1100 (Fla. 2002), the Florida Supreme Court found that equitable estoppel operated to

prevent a Florida state agency, the Department of Health Rehabilitative Services, from

asserting the statute of limitations in its own defense, based on allegations that the

Department actively concealed its own negligence, obstructed investigation of Plaintiff’s

claims, and falsified government records to conceal its own wrongdoing. Plaintiff

proposes to show that an equivalent level of governmental misconduct has taken place in

relation to the instant case. This affirmative misconduct includes:

! 9!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 10 of 20 PageID 1113

A-917
1. what appears to be false testimony by USF’s 30(b)(6) corporate designee, who claims

Zainulabeddin was readmitted to Medical School in February 2012 based on a

document that did not exist. See Specter Depo. at 37-38; 54-55; 97-101; 135-37; and see

Plaintiff’s Statement at 3-5; Zainulabeddin Aff. at 15-17;

2. an apparent admission that USF retroactively modified documents to create a record

of failure as to Zainulabeddin, and produced the falsified documents to Plaintiff in

discovery. See Stock Depo. at 120-123; Plaintiff’s Statement at 9-11;

3. active concealment of the disparate treatment of Zainulabeddin’s classmates at

deposition. Compare Stock Depo. at 89 (claiming she never assigned a “T” grade in

Doctoring II) with Stock Depo. at 94-96 (admitting she gave as many as 35 “T” grades

to Zainulabeddin’s classmates); and

4. abuse by Dr. Specter of his advocate role in relation to Zainulabeddin’s Petition for

Readmission. See Zainulabeddin Aff. at 13-14.

Zainulabeddin recognizes that much of the misconduct she is referencing is

recent, including misconduct after she filed her suit such as false testimony at recent

depositions. However, ongoing concealment of misconduct, such as appears in this case,

creates a reasonable inference that the concealment has been underway since the

misconduct initially occurred. It would be unfair to penalize Zainulabeddin because she

was unable to obtain evidence of USF’s deliberate concealment until the tools of judicial

discovery were available to her. Logically, if Specter lied at deposition about

Zainulabeddin’s disability documentation, then he has been lying about it since the time

of her second dismissal from Medical School in March 2013, if not before. And it appears

! 10!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 11 of 20 PageID 1114

A-918
that Stock has concealed facts about Zainulabeddin’s academic record since December

2012. See Stock Depo. at 121-22.

Zainulabeddin prays this honorable Court to find she has made a sufficient

showing of Defendant’s affirmative misconduct giving rising to equitable estoppel, and

accordingly to allow her state tort claims to go forward to the jury in this case.

C. USF’S VOLUNTARY UNDERTAKING CREATED AN IMPLIED


FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP WITH ZAINULABEDDIN

Defendant opposes Zainulabeddin’s breach of fiduciary duties claim by asserting

that colleges, universities and their employees do not, as a general matter, owe fiduciary

duties to their students. Motion at 11- 14. Zainulabeddin agrees, but considers that USF,

by and through Specter, undertook to create a fiduciary relationship with

Zainulabeddin, by a series of voluntary undertakings, as follows: 1) requiring

Zainulabeddin to obtain a neuropsychological evaluation; 2) volunteering to pay for said

evaluation; 3) selecting the professional who would perform said evaluation; and 4)

voluntarily undertaking, by and through Specter, to transmit the results of that

neuropsychological evaluation to Zainulabeddin. See Zainulabeddin Aff. at 4-12.

It is settled law in Florida that an implied fiduciary relationship will exist when

there is “a degree of dependency on one side” combined with “an undertaking on the

other side to protect and/or benefit the dependent party.” Masztal v. City of Miami, 971

So.2d 803, 809 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), citing Maxwell v. First United Bank, 782 So.2d 931,

933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). The Florida Supreme Court has found that an implied fiduciary

relationship exists in “every possible case . . . in which there is confidence reposed on

one side and the resulting superiority and influence on the other. . . . The rule embraces

both technical fiduciary relations and those informal relations which exist whenever one

! 11!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 12 of 20 PageID 1115

A-919
man trusts in and relies upon another.” Quinn v. Phipps, 93 Fla. 805, 113 So. 419, 421

(1927); and see Doe v. Evans, 814 So. 2d 370, 374 (Fla. 2002), citing and affirming Quinn

as good law. Fiduciary relationships implied by law are “premised upon the specific

factual situation surrounding the transaction and the relationship of the parties.” Evans,

814 So.2d at 374, citing Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc., 644 So.2d 515, 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).

In this specific factual context, USF created a fiduciary relationship with

Zainulabeddin by voluntarily undertaking to provide an extremely valuable service of

vital importance to her ability to complete medical school and achieve her career goals,

and by controlling the provision of that service in a manner that created dependency in

Zainulabeddin and caused her to repose her confidence in Specter. USF’s conduct

caused Zainulabeddin to have a reasonable belief that the results of her

neuropsychological evaluation constitued an academic record that would only be shared

with her to the extent Specter believed necessary and appropriate. Specter reinforced

that situation of dependency by undertaking to advise, counsel and protect

Zainulabeddin, presenting himself as a benefactor and expert who would provide the

results of the neuropsychological evaluation to her. See Brigham v. Brigham, 11 So. 3d

374, 387 (To establish implied fiduciary relationship, party must allege a degree of

dependency on one side and some degree of undertaking on the other side to advise,

counsel and protect the weaker party). Any reasonable finder of fact must agree that

Zainulabeddin was the weaker, dependent party in this context and that USF, by and

through Specter, voluntarily undertook to advise, counsel and protect her in relation to

possible neurological deficits and disabilities that could be revealed by the

Neuropsychological Evaluation. See, e.g. Specter Depo. at 28-29 (Specter met with

! 12!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 13 of 20 PageID 1116

A-920
Zainulabeddin to explain that USF would be providing her with “an assessment of her

learning style to try and understand if she had any learning deficiencies and how she

might best approach dealing with that”).

D. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY DOES NOT BAR ZAINULABEDDIN’S


NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION CLAIM

Defendant argues Plaintiff’s negligent misrepresentation claim is barred by

sovereign immunity. See Motion at 14-15. This argument is incorrect and is based on

authorities that are not applicable to the instant case.

Zainulabeddin’s negligent misrepresentation claim does not involve negligent

misrepresentations to the public in general, which is the issue at stake in the various

cases cited by USF. USF relies on Storm v. the Town of Ponce Inlet, 866 So. 2d 713, 715

(Fla. 5th DCA 2004), and cases cited therein. These cases collectively stand for the

proposition that “the government owes no duty to individual members of the public for

giving out accurate information or properly enforcing building codes.” Storm at 715.

None of these cases relate to a situation where a government agency voluntarily

undertakes to provide a person a valuable service and then to inform said person about

the results of the service provided. Instead, the cases cited by USF relate to situations

where a plaintiff attempts to hold a government agent or employee liable for failure to

maintain and provide accurate information in government records. See Hillsborough

County v. Morris, 730 So. 2d 367, 368 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1999) (county not liable for

negligence or misrepresentation in connection with dissemination of information

concerning location of water mains); Freidberg v. Town of Longboat Key, 504 So. 2d 52,

53 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1987) (private citizens have no right of recovery against municipalities

for negligently maintaining and providing information from public records).

! 13!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 14 of 20 PageID 1117

A-921
The correct analysis of sovereign immunity in relationship to Zainulabeddin’s

negligent misrepresentation claim is the two-part analysis employed by the Florida

Supreme Court in Kaisner v. Kolb, 543 So. 2d 732, 733-38 (Fla. 1989). Under Kaisner, the

first step of the analysis is to consider whether “a common law or statutory duty of care

existed that would have been applicable to an individual under similar circumstances.”

Id. at 734. If the court finds that a government agency or employee would have owed a

common law or statutory duty of care to the plaintiff in the particular circumstances,

only then does the question of governmental immunity arise. Id. at 736. And see Storm,

866 So. 2d at 715-16 (interpreting Kaisner and citing cases employing Kaisner’s two-step

approach).

This honorable Court should find that Zainulabeddin’s negligent

misrepresentation claim succeeds at the first step of the Kaisner analysis. As in Kaisner,

Zainulabeddin was restrained in her liberty by the actions of the APRC, acting by and

through Specter. See Kaisner at 734. Specifically, she was required as a condition of

continued enrollment in Medical School to undergo extensive medical testing by a

professional chosen by Specter, and her personal medical information was then placed

in Specter’s custody such that Zainulabeddin had to seek access to the information

through Specter. In this circumstance, Zainulabeddin was placed in the foreseeable zone

of risk created by a specific voluntary undertaking of the medical school, performance of

which had been delegated to Specter. See Storm, 866 So. 2d at 717 (“liability arises when

an employer has a legal duty arising out of the relationship between the employment in

question and the particular plaintiff, which is owed to the plaintiff if he or she is in the

zone of foreseeable risks created by the employment.”) A duty of care arose when USF,

! 14!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 15 of 20 PageID 1118

A-922
by and through Specter, generated information about Zainulabeddin’s disability status

and then undertook to counsel and guide Zainulabeddin based on the information it had

required her to participate in generating. Unfortunately, Specter performed the task

negligently and thereby violated the trust created when USF required her to participate

in neuropsychological testing as a condition of her continued enrollment in the Medical

Doctor program.

It is undisputed that Dr. Specter was acting as an agent of the Medical School in

relation to the neuropsychological evaluation of Zainulabeddin. See Specter Depo. at

122-23 (“[Y]ou know, the referral [for a neuropsychological evaluation of Zainulabeddin]

really came from the APRC, so I was the conduit, but not the referring individual. . . .

[I]t’s important to note that I did not make the decision that she needed this.”) Specter

was continuing to act as the “conduit” for the administration of USF’s Medical School

when he undertook to share the results of Zainulabeddin’s neuropsychological

evaluation with her, so his negligent misrepresentations to her were within the scope of

a specific duty delegated to him by USF.

The second step of the Kaisner analysis assesses whether “actions which give rise

to a tort claim against a government body involve discretionary as opposed to operational

matters”. Storm, 866 So. 2d at 718. To consider this, Florida courts apply a four point

test:

(1) Does the challenged act, omission, or decision necessarily involve a


basic governmental policy, program, or objective? (2) Is the questioned
act, omission, or decision essential to the realization or accomplishment of
that policy, program, or objective as opposed to one which would not
change the course or direction of the policy, program, or objective?
(3) Does the act, omission, or decision require the exercise of basic policy
evaluation, judgment, and expertise on the part of the governmental
agency involved? (4) Does the governmental agency involved possess the

! 15!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 16 of 20 PageID 1119

A-923
requisite constitutional, statutory, or lawful authority and duty to do or
make the challenged act, omission, or decision? If these preliminary
questions can be clearly and unequivocally answered in the affirmative,
then the challenged act, omission or decision can, with a reasonable
degree of assurance, be classified as a discretionary governmental process
and nontortious, regardless of its unwisdom.

Storm, 866 S0. 2d at 718, citing Commercial Carrier and Avalone v. Board
of County Commissioners, 493 So. 2d 1002, 1005 (Fla. 1986)

Here, the challenged conduct clearly falls on the operational side of the

operational-discretionary dichotomy. Requiring Zainulabeddin to undergo

neuropsychological evaluation does not involve a basic governmental policy or objective,

and is not essential to the realization of any governmental policy or objective. It also

does not involve the exercise of basic policy evaluation, judgment and expertise on the

part of USF. Lastly, USF does not possess a lawful authority or duty to require students

to undergo neuropsychological evaluation as a condition of continued enrollment. Since

all four preliminary questions can be clearly and unequivocally answered in the negative,

the challenged conduct of USF must be recognized as an act that is operational rather

than discretionary in nature. Kaisner, 543 So. 2d 732, 736-37 (“An operational function . .

. is one not necessary to or inherent in policy or planning, that merely reflects a

secondary decision as to how those policies or plans will be implemented.”) Because

USF and Specter’s conduct toward Zainulabeddin was operational in character, it does

not involve a type of discretion that must be insulated from suit, and sovereign immunity

does not apply to bar Zainulabeddin’s negligent misrepresentation claim.

E. ZAINULABEDDIN IS A QUALIFIED PLAINTIFF UNDER THE


REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973

! 16!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 17 of 20 PageID 1120

A-924
Defendant asserts that Zainulabeddin is not an “otherwise qualified individual”

for purposes of the Rehabilitation Act. See Motion at 19-20. But this is an argument

better suited for trial, because it relies on Defendant’s view of contested facts.

To paint Zainulabeddin as a person who is not “otherwise qualified,” Defendant

construes numerous contested material facts in the manner most favorable to Defendant,

which is not a proper basis for summary judgment. See Carter, 731 F.3d 1161, 1166 (11th

Cir. 2013) (in reviewing motion for summary judgment, the Court should “view the

evidence and all factual inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-

moving party, and resolve all reasonable doubts about the facts in favor of the non-

movant”). Specifically, Defendant asks the Court to find that Zainulabeddin was

dismissed from Medical School based solely on her academic problems, and to find that

Zainulabeddin could not have succeeded in the remaining years of Medical School

unless Defendant lowered its academic standards. Defendant further asks the Court to

judge Zainulabeddin to be a person that is fundamentally “not able to meet the academic

and technical standards requisite to admission or participation” in USF’s Medical

School. See J.A.M. v. Nova Se. Univ., Inc., 646 F. App’x 921, 926-27 (11th Cir. 2016)

(defining a person who is not an “otherwise qualified individual” for purposes of the

Rehabilitation Act as lacking the capacity to meet the academic or technical standards

required to participate in post-secondary education.)

The Court cannot make such broad factual findings at this stage without

engaging in an impermissable weighing of the evidence that would tend to “substitute

[the Court’s] judgment concerning the weight of the evidence for the jury’s.” Reeves, 530

U.S. at 151-53.

! 17!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 18 of 20 PageID 1121

A-925
Notably, Zainulabeddin asserts that based on her performance she should have

passed one of the two courses she is alleged to have failed in March 2013. See

Zainulabeddin Aff. at 21-23. She also provides extensive evidence that could support a

finding that discriminatory animus was the but for cause of her dismissal from the

Medical School in March 2013. Id. at 13-26; and see Plaintiff’s Statement at 5-11. There is

too much evidence of irregular practices and of Zainulabeddin being singled out to fail,

for the Court to make a factual finding at this phase that Zainulebeddin “is not able to

meet the academic and technical standards requisite to admission or participation” in

USF’s Medical School. Instead the Court must find that, for purposes of the summary

judgment phase, Zainulabeddin has met her burden of showing pretext because she has

“introduc[ed] evidence that could form the basis for a finding of facts, which when taken

in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, could allow a jury to find by the

preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff has established pretext.” Hairston, 9

F.3d at 921 (11th Cir. 1993).

As the Eleventh Circuit stated in Hairston, “the only issue to be considered at

summary judgment is whether the plaintiff’s evidence has placed material facts at issue.”

Id. Zainulabeddin has met this burden, by showing that 14 of her classmates in one

course, and 35 of her classmates in another course, were treated more favorably than

Zainulabeddin through issuance of a correctable “T” grade when they failed, whereas

Zainulabeddin was singled out to fail and issued a non-correctable failing grade of “U”

based on vague allegations of a “global deficiency” in her performance. See

Zainulabeddin Aff. at 17-26. Based on such evidence, a reasonable trier of fact could find

that she was dismissed from Medical School solely based on discriminatory animus. See

! 18!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 19 of 20 PageID 1122

A-926
Hairston at 921 (reversal of summary judgment required where Plaintiff provided

sufficient factual basis for a reasonable finder of fact to conclude that stated reasons for

adverse decision were pretext).

F. ZAINULABEDDIN SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED PROTECTED ACTIVITY


TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF RETALIATION

Defendant’s claim that Zainulabeddin failed to plead that she engaged in

protected activity under the Rehabilitaton Act must be quickly rejected. Two days before

her dismissal, Zainulabeddin asserted her right to accommodations of disability on the

CBSE medical licensing test, despite the opposition of Dr. Fraser Stevenson, who at that

time, in the words of Dr. Stock, was “basically in charge of the medical school, helping

to implement the medical school curriculum.” Stock Depo. at 84. Defendant’s assertion

that Stevenson could not have influenced the APRC’s decision to dismiss Zainulabeddin

must also be rejected, since such a highly placed administrator obviously had the ability

to influence the APRC’s members, virtually all of whom were his subordinates. Nor is it

true that Zainulabeddin’s retaliation claim is leveled solely against Dr. Stevenson, as

Defendant asserts. See Motion at 23. On the contrary, Dr. Specter also had strong

motives to retaliate against Zainulabeddin, to conceal his earlier mistake related to her

neuropsychological evaluation and disability status. Furthermore, Specter was also a

recipient of the email in which Zainulabeddin rejected Stevenson’s advice to forego

disability accommodations on the CBSE. And Specter, as a non-voting member of the

APRC who attended all APRC meetings, was well-positioned to influence the APRC’s

decision-making as to Zainulabeddin.

Furthermore, Zainulabeddin will testify that Dr. Kumar told her that Dr.

Stevenson or Dr. Specter would determine her final grade in EBCR II. Zainulabeddin

! 19!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 27 Filed 02/19/17 Page 20 of 20 PageID 1123

A-927
Aff. at 21-23. This information, combined with the fact that Kumar and USF have

maintained no record of Zainulabeddin’s final quiz grade in ECBR II, constitutes

sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that Zainulabeddin did not actually fail

EBCR II and instead was dismissed from Medical School at the direction of Stevenson

and/or Specter, based on her insistence on seeking disability accommodations on the

CBSE. See Hairston, 9 F.3d at 921.

G. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR REHABILITATION ACT IS


IRRELEVANT TO THIS CASE

Defendant’s assertion that Zainulabeddin’s Rehabilitation Act claims are

“partially barred” by the statute of limitations has no relevance to this case. See Motion

at 24. Zainulabeddin’s Rehabilitation Act claims relate only to her dismissal in March of

3013, and do not pertain to any event that occurred prior to January 22, 2012 (except to

the limited extent that such past events might be relevant factual background).

Respectfully submitted on this 19th day of February, 2017.

/s/ Stanley R. Apps

Stanley R. Apps, Esq.


FL Bar. No. 0108868
Stanley R. Apps, P.A.
1950 Elkhorn Ct., Unit 147
San Mateo, CA 94403
(310) 709-3966
stan.apps@gmail.com
Attorney for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 19, 2017, I electronically filed the


foregoing with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will
send a Notice of Electronic Filing to all counsel of record herein.

/s/ Stanley R. Apps

! 20!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1124

A-928
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

NAUSHEEN ZAINULABEDDIN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 8-16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA


BOARD OF TRUSTEES,

Defendant.
______________________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF FILING AFFIDAVIT


IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the

Plaintiff, Nausheen Zainulabeddin, by and through her undersigned counsel,

hereby files the affidavit of the Plaintiff, Nausheen Zainulabeddin, in support of

her Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

[Dkt. 27].

Exhibit A: Affidavit of Nausheen Zainulabeddin, with Exhibits Thereto


Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28 Filed 02/19/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1125

A-929
Respectfully submitted on this 19th day of February, 2017.

/s/ Stanley R. Apps

Stanley R. Apps, Esq.


FL Bar. No. 0108868
Stanley R. Apps, P.A.
1950 Elkhorn Ct., Unit 147
San Mateo, CA 94403
(310) 709-3966
stan.apps@gmail.com
Attorney for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 19, 2017, I electronically filed the


foregoing with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will
send a Notice of Electronic Filing to all counsel of record herein.

/s/ Stanley R. Apps


Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 27 PageID 1126

A-930
AFFIDAVIT OF NAUSHEEN ZAINULABEDDIN

I, NAUSHEEN ZAINULABEDDIN, being duly sworn, hereby swear and

affirm as follows:

1. I am the plaintiff in the civil action Nausheen Zainulabeddin v.

University of South Florida Board of Trustees, 8:16-cv-637-JSM-

TGW.

2. I was a medical student at the University of South Florida’s

Morsani College of Medicine (hereinafter “Medical School” or

“USF Medical School”) from August 10, 2009 until May 28, 2013. I

have attached my transcript for this period hereto as Exhibit A.

3. As the transcript shows, I attended the Medical School for four (4)

academic years, which were: 2009-10; 2010-11; 2011-12; and 2012-13.

During that time, I completed the first and second years of

Medical School. Specifically, I completed the first year of Medical

School in the 2010-11 academic year, on my second attempt. I

completed the second year of Medical School in the 2012-13

academic year, on my second attempt.

4. During my four (4) academic years at the Medical School, I was

dismissed twice. A summary of the timing and rationale(s) for my

two dismissals, prepared by the Medical School’s Academic

Performance Review Committee, is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

! 1!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 2 of 27 PageID 1127

A-931
5. As Exhibit B demonstrates, I was dismissed for the first time on

January 5, 2012, because I received a failing grade in Medical

Sciences II while attempting Year 2 of the Medical School

curriculum. See Ex. B at 3.

EVIDENCE OF BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY


AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION BY USF

6. During the time of my first dismissal from the Medical School,

between January 5, 2012 and my readmission to the Medical

School on February 16, 2012, I became aware of facts indicating

that I had been subjected to breach of fiduciary duty and

negligent misrepresentation by the Medical School, acting by and

through its agent the Dean of Student Affairs, Dr. Steven Specter

(“Specter” or “Dr. Specter”).

7. This Affidavit will summarize my proposed testimony on the

following matters relevant to Counts I and II of my Complaint:

a. USF’s voluntary undertaking to require me to undergo a

Comprehensive Neuropsychological Examination;

b. USF’s Voluntary undertaking, by and through Specter, to

inform me of the results of said Comprehensive Neurological

Examination;

c. Dr. Specter’s errors in informing me of the results of the

Comprehensive Neuropsychological Examination;

! 2!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 3 of 27 PageID 1128

A-932
d. Dr. Specter’s admission of his error and reassurance that he

would cause me to be readmitted to the Medical School in

February 2012;

e. Dr. Specter’s voluntary undertaking to represent me as my

advocate in my appeal of my second dismissal in March through

May of 2013, and his betrayal of that trust; and

f. Dr. Specter’s deliberate misstatements of fact at his deposition

on December 8, 2016.

8. As the transcript of his deposition shows, Dr. Specter continues

to act in a fraudulent manner related to the breach of fiduciary

duty and negligent misrepresentation he committed on behalf of

USF. Specifically, his deposition contains a series of factually

untrue statements that appear to be intentional fabrications

designed to conceal his past errors and misconduct.

9. Because Dr. Specter has continued to act in a fraudulent manner

intended to conceal his wrongdoing from both USF and this

Court (even while participating in this litigation as USF’s

Corporate Designee pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.),

this honorable Court should not grant summary judgment in

USF’s favor without giving me a fair opportunity to show at trial

that Specter has engaged in ongoing deliberate affirmative

! 3!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 4 of 27 PageID 1129

A-933
misconduct, including perjury, intended to mislead and to cause

me to forego my legal rights.

USF’s Voluntary Undertaking to Require me to Undergo


A Comprehensive Neuropsychological Evaluation

10. On December 8, 2016, Dr. Steven Specter testified on behalf of

the University of South Florida Board of Trustees, as their

Corporate Designee pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. See Deposition of Steven Specter, Ph.D.,

(hereinafter “Specter Depo.”) at 13-14 and Ex. 1.

11. During his deposition testimony, Dr. Specter admitted, in his

capacity as USF’s Corporate Representative, that the Medical

School’s Academic Performance Review Committee (“APRC”)

required me to undergo a comprehensive neuropsychological

evaluation for the purpose of assessing whether I had a disability

that was impeding my performance at Medical School. See

Specter Depo., at 121-23 and Ex. 18 at 3-4.

12. USF has also admitted that the comprehensive

neuropsychological evaluation was provided free of charge. See

Specter Depo. Ex. 15 at 8 (stating “There was no charge to Plaintiff

[Zainulabeddin]” for the neuropsychological evaluation performed

by Mike Schoenberg of USF); and see Specter Depo. at 122

! 4!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 5 of 27 PageID 1130

A-934
(stating that it was a practice of USF to provide neuropsycholgical

evaluations to some students at a free or reduced price).

13. While I did not know this at the time, I now know that it is not a

typical practice for colleges and universities to require students to

obtain neuropsychological evaluations for the purpose of

assessing a student’s disability status. It is also not a typical

practice for a college or university to select the psychologist who

will perform such an evaluation or to pay for the evaluation to be

performed, as USF did in my case. One reason why such a

practice may be uncommon is the high cost of such an evaluation,

which can cost as much as $5000 to $10,000 to complete.

14. USF voluntarily undertook to pay for me to have a

neuropsychological evaluation and required me to submit to that

evaluation with the evaluator of USF’s choice, Dr. Michael

Schoenberg (“Dr. Schoenberg”). See Letter from APRC to

Nausheen Zainulabeddin, dated June 7, 2010, attached hereto as

Exhibit C (indicating I was required “to obtain a comprehensive

assessment of [my] learning style,” as directed by Steven Specter,

as a condition of continued enrollment in the Medical School.

15. I met with Dr. Schoenberg on August 5, August 12 and

September 2 of 2010. Thereafter he produced a draft report dated

! 5!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 6 of 27 PageID 1131

A-935
December 17, 2010. See Neuropsychological Evaluation of

Nausheen Zainulabeddin by Dr. Schoenberg, pages 2 through 6,

dated December 17, 2010, attached hereto as Exhibit D. (Please

note that the first page of this Exhibit has been lost, while in the

custody of Defendant.)

USF’s Voluntary Undertaking, by and through Specter,


To Inform me of the Results
of the Neurological Examination Ordered by USF

16. The written neuropsychological report was provided to Dr.

Specter and was not provided to me. Rather than being allowed to

review the report directly, I was asked to meet with Dr. Specter so

that he could explain the results of the report to me.

17. Because I had not hired Dr. Schoenberg to evaluate me, and had

not been the person paying him for his work, I believed the

neuropsychological evaluation constituted a type of academic

record controlled by the University.

18. Even though Dr. Specter is not a physician, he was listed as

“Referral Source” on Dr. Shoenberg’s report. See

Neuropsychological Evaluation of Nausheen Zainulabeddin,

Updated with Addendum, dated March 14, 2012, attached hereto as

Exhibit E, at 1.

! 6!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 7 of 27 PageID 1132

A-936
19. Even though Dr. Specter is not a physician, he purported to

explain the results of the Neuropsychological Evaluation to me

during a meeting at his office in or about October of 2010. At that

meeting, he told me that he had reviewed Dr. Schoenberg’s

written evaluation and “Nothing came out of the report.” He

added that, based on his review of the report, “There is nothing to

worry about and you should continue studying hard and doing

well.”

20. Dr. Specter voluntarily undertook to inform me of the results of

the Neuropsychological Examination, rather than providing me

with a copy of the report.

21. Through this voluntary undertaking, Dr. Specter, on behalf of the

University of South Florida, took it upon himself to act as a

fiduciary by informing me correctly of the results of the

Neuropsychological Evaluation. This action continued his earlier

voluntary undertaking(s) of referring me to Dr. Schoenberg for

evaluation, arranging for Dr. Schoenberg to receive payment from

USF, and arranging to receive the only copy of the report.

Dr. Specter’s Errors in Informing Me


Of the Results of the Neuropsychological Evaluation

22. At our meeting, Dr. Specter misinformed me as to the contents of

the neuropsychological report.

! 7!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 8 of 27 PageID 1133

A-937
23. In fact, Schoenberg’s report indicated that I would qualify for

special education services and accommodations based on having

attention difficulties and/or ADHD. See Exhibit D at 1-2; and see

Deposition of Dr. Sandra Stock (hereinafter “Stock Depo.”) [filed

by Defendant at Dkt. 23-5 and 23-6] at 45-47 (stating that the

Neuropsychological Evaluation of Nausheen Zainulabeddin, dated

December 17, 2010, shows that Zainulabeddin was eligible for

special education services and accommodations based on her

attention difficulties).

24. Dr. Specter failed to inform me that the neuropsychological

evaluation recommended that I seek special education services

and accommodations of my attention difficulties. Instead, he

assured me that nothing came out of my report and that I did not

need to worry about the results.

Dr. Specter’s Admission of his Error


and Reassurance that He Would Cause Me to be Readmitted
to the Medical School in February 2012

25. As a result of the misinformation provided to me by Dr. Specter, I

failed to seek accommodations of my disability between December

201o and January 2012. During this period, I believed that I did not

suffer from ADHD and that my attention difficulties did not

qualify me for accommodations. Instead, I believed that my

! 8!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 9 of 27 PageID 1134

A-938
attention difficulties were caused by challenging life

circumstances.

26. I was dismissed from the Medical School for the first time on

January 5, 2012.

27. After my dismissal, I filed an appeal requesting readmission.

28. My Appeal Letter dated January 22, 2012 is attached hereto as

Exhibit F. Notably, my Appeal Letter does not refer to a diagnosis

of ADHD and does not have any reference to seeking

accommodations of disability. This is because, when I wrote the

Appeal Letter in January 2012, I believed that I did not suffer from

ADHD and did not qualify for accommodations of disability. I also

believed that any attention difficulties I experienced were the

result of emotional disturbances caused by life circumstances. Dr.

Specter’s negligent misrepresentation of the contents of the

Nauropsychological Evaluation had supported and confirmed

these false beliefs.

29. My appeal of my dismissal from Medical School was rejected by

the APRC on February 2, 2012.

30. After my appeal was dismissed, I went to Dr. Specter to request a

copy of the Neuropsychological Evaluation. I did this because it

was recommended by my assigned counselor, Dr. Olga Skalkos.

! 9!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 10 of 27 PageID 1135

A-939
31. On February 6, 2012 I obtained and reviewed a copy of the

Neuropsychological Evaluation (attached hereto as Exhibit D).

32. On February 8, 2012 I met with Dr. Specter to discuss the

differences between his earlier representations about the

Neuropsychological Evaluation and the actual contents of the

report.

33. At this meeting, Dr. Specter told me that there had been a mix-up

in October 2010 when he informed me of the results of my

Neuropsychological Evaluation. He indicated that he had

mistakenly read another student’s neuropsychological evaluation

and confused it with mine, and therefore had mistakenly given me

some incorrect information.

34. Dr. Specter apologized for giving me misinformation in October

2010. He stated he would correct his mistake by arranging a

meeting with the APRC. He stated that he believed the APRC

would agree to reverse my dismissal from Medical School based

on the information in the Neuropsychological Evaluation.

35. USF has admitted that I was readmitted to the Medical School on

February 16, 2012 because of the “new information” contained in

the Neuropsychological Evaluation, which was provided by Dr.

Specter to the APRC for the first time on February 16, 2012. See

! 10!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 11 of 27 PageID 1136

A-940
Defendant’s Objections and Answers to Plaintiff’s Third Set of

Interrogatories, attached hereto as Exhibit G, at 2. And see Stock

Depo. at 26-27 (recalling that I was readmitted because “I had

made some information available to people in the college of

medicine” regarding health information and testing that had not

been properly considered when it was first submitted).

36. Of course, the information in the Neuropsychological Evaluation

was not truly “new information,” since it had been provided to

Specter in 2010. However, it was apparently “new information” to

the members of the APRC.

37. However, Dr. Specter has testified that Defendant’s Answers to

Plaintiff’s Third Set of Interrogatories are incorrect, because the

Neuropsychological Evaluation of Zainulabeddin by Schoenberg

was known to the APRC prior to February 16, 2012. See Specter

Depo. at 108-114. USF has made no effort to clarify the significant

discrepancy between its Answers to Interrogatories and Specter’s

testimony.

38. After reviewing the Neuropsychological Evaluation and meeting

with Dr. Specter, I realized that my attention difficulties had a

confirmed neurological basis and were not caused only by life

circumstances. Therefore, on February 14, 2012, I wrote to my

! 11!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 12 of 27 PageID 1137

A-941
professor Dr. Saundra Stock, who is a psychiatrist, that “it has

come to my recent attention that I have a confirm diagnosis of my

underlying ADHD. I wanted your advice.” See Email chain

between Dr. Saundra Stock and Nausheen Zainulabeddin,

attached hereto as Exhibit H. And see Stock Depo. at 32-34

(recalling her conversation with me about attention difficulties

and my diagnosis on February 17, 2012).

39. At trial, I intend to offer evidence that the Medical School agreed

to readmit me on February 16, 2012 because of the error made by

Dr. Specter—which was, specifically, his failure to correctly

inform me of the results of the Neuropsychological Evaluation.

This evidence will include my testimony about Dr. Specter’s

statements to me, as well as admissions by USF in its Answers to

Plaintiff’s Third Set of Interrogatories and admissions by Dr.

Saundra Stock at her deposition.

40. I will argue that Specter’s error, and his later attempts to conceal

it, constitute breach of fiduciary duty and negligent

misrepresentation by Specter.

41. The readmission by USF on February 16, 2012 had the effect of

causing me to forego legal action at that time, since I reasonably

believed that commencing legal action against the Medical School

! 12!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 13 of 27 PageID 1138

A-942
while I was a student there would interfere with my continuing

relationship with the Medical School and with Dr. Specter.

42. Specifically, in February 2012, I made an appointment to meet

with attorney Traci Cain Steen (“Attorney Steen”) to discuss legal

action against USF based on Dr. Specter’s conduct.

43. However, I cancelled my appointment with Attorney Steen on or

about February 1o, 2012, after the conversation with Specter when

he told me that he had made a mistake and that he would correct

the mistake by speaking to the Medical School’s Academic

Performance Review Committee (“APRC”) on my behalf. He told

me that he would explain his error to the APRC and that the

outcome would be that I would be reinstated due to his mistake.

Dr. Specter’s Voluntary Undertaking to Represent Me as my Advocate


In my Appeal of my Second Dismissal in March through May of 2013

44. After my second dismissal from USF Medical School on March 14,

2013, Dr. Specter asked me to allow him to be my advocate for

purposes of appealing my dismissal. At that time, I believe he

represented my best interests, based on the way he had (as I

understood it) admitted his mistake and intervened to cause me to

be readmitted to Medical School in February 2012.

45. I allowed him to be my advocate regarding my appeal, based on

my belief that, as part of advocating for me, he would explain his

! 13!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 14 of 27 PageID 1139

A-943
earlier mistake to the APRC so that they would be able to

understand the effect of Specter’s earlier error(s) on my progress

as a medical student.

46. I later learned that Specter, while appearing as my advocate

before the APRC, did not explain his earlier mistake to them and

instead used his appearances as my advocate in April 2013 and

May 2013 as opportunities to conceal his past mistakes that

harmed me. I believe he made a determination that it would be

better for his career to see me dismissed from the Medical School

than to admit to his earlier error and the set backs to my Medical

School career that resulted from his earlier error.

47. This misuse of the advocate role by Dr. Specter constitutes

affirmative misconduct intended to mislead and intended to cause

me to forego my legal rights for the duration of the appeal

process.

Dr. Specter’s Deliberate Misstatements of Fact


At his Deposition on December 8, 2016

48. Defendant argues that USF’s actions to forebear me from filing

suit ended by the date of my final dismissal from the USF Medical

School on May 28, 2013. See Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at 9-

11. Defendant also claims that I cannot show any fraudulent

! 14!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 15 of 27 PageID 1140

A-944
activity by Specter and/or USF. Id. at 10. These arguments are

without merit.

49. Specter, in his capacity as USF’s Corporate Designee, made

numerous untrue statements at his Deposition on December 8,

2016.

50. At his deposition, Specter referred repeatedly to a document that

does not exist. Specifically, he repeatedly claims to have reviewed

a new neuropsychological evaluation of Zainulabeddin produced

by an independent evaluator prior to February 2012. See Specter

Depo. at 37-38 (referring to an “outside assessment that Ms.

Zainulabeddin had done. . . that may have been the new

information that caused [her] appeal [of her dismissal from the

USF College of Medicine] to be successful); Id. at 54-55 (stating

that Dr. Specter reviewed a report by an independent

psychologist containing a definitive ADHD diagnosis for Ms.

Zainulabeddin, between February 7 and February 21 of 2012, and

that either Dr. Specter or Dr. Alicia Monroe recommended

readmission of Zainulabeddin based on this alleged report by an

independent psychologist); and see Spector Depo. at 97-101

(repeating the claim that there was a new outside neurological

! 15!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 16 of 27 PageID 1141

A-945
evaluation of Zainulabeddin, dated 2012 or earlier, that led to

Zainulabeddin’s readmission); at 135-7 (same).

51. Each of Dr. Specter’s claims about this new neuropsychological

report appears to be deliberately fabricated.

52. I did not obtain an independent neuropsychological evaluation by

an outside expert until March 2014, when I was evaluated by Dr.

Stefanie J. Mihalopoulos. See Neuropsychological Evaluation by

Dr. Mihalopoulos, attached hereto as Exhibit I.

53. I certainly did not submit an independent neuropsycholoigcal

evaluation in support of my appeal of my dismissal from Medical

School in January 2012, as Dr. Specter claims. I could not have

done so, because at that time I did not believe I had ADHD and

had not yet obtained an independent neuropsychological

evaluation by an outside expert. Furthermore, my Appeal Letter

does not contain any reference to a diagnosis of ADHD and does

not refer to seeking accommodations of disability. See Exhibit G.

54. Nothing in my Appeal Letter indicates that I was aware of having

ADHD or that I was supporting my appeal with an independent

neuropsychological evaluation by an outside expert. Had I spent a

substantial amount of my own funds to obtain an outside expert’s

evaluation, for the purpose of supporting my appeal, I would have

! 16!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 17 of 27 PageID 1142

A-946
at least referred to it in my Letter of Appeal.

EVIDENCE THAT I WAS SINGLED OUT TO FAIL TWO COURSES


IN MARCH 2013, BASED ON MY DISABILITY OR
IN RETALIATION FOR REQUESTING TESTING ACCOMMODATIONS

55. In addition to the foregoing, this Affidavit will also summarize my

proposed testimony on the following matters relevant to Counts V

and VI of my Complaint, which allege disability discrimination

and retaliation for requesting disability accommodations:

a. I was singled out to receive a non-correctable “U” grade in my

Doctoring II course, even though 35 other students who failed

that course were given a correctable “T” grade that converted

into a pass upon completing remediation. See Stock Depo Ex.

15; and see Stock Depo Ex. 13 and Ex. 14;

b. I was singled out to receive a non-correctable “U” grade in my

Evidence Based Clinical Reasoning II course, even though 14

other students who failed were given a correctable “T” grade

that converted into a pass upon completing remediation. See

Deposition of Ambuj Kumar (“Kumar Depo.”) [filed by

Defendant at Dkt. 23-4] at 48-49; 59-63.

c. I was given a failing grade in Evidence Based Clinical Medicine

II (hereinafter “EBCR II”) because I allegedly failed the final

quiz, but my final quiz grade was never finalized or recorded

! 17!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 18 of 27 PageID 1143

A-947
and the Medical School now states that my grade on that quiz is

“Unknown” and that the official percentile score on the quiz

was never calculated. See Defendant’s Objections and Answers

to Plaintiff’s Sixth Set of Interrogatories, attached hereto as

Exhibit J, at 2-3;

d. Based on the final quiz grade orally reported to me by the

course director, and my passing grade on the final presentation,

I should have passed EBCR II;

e. The course director of EBCR II, Dr. Ambuj Kumar (“Kumar” or

“Dr. Kumar”) told me that he would determine my course grade

in consultation with Dr. Specter and Dr. Frazer Stevenson

(“Stevenson” or “Dr. Stevenson”), and that my final grade in

the course would be determined by the APRC rather than the

course director;

f. Two days before the APRC dismissed me from the Medical

School, I rejected Dr. Stevenson’s advice to take the

Comprehensive Basic Science Exam (“CBSE”) without

accommodations of my disability; and

g. Dr. Kumar testified at his deposition that the reason I received

a grade of “U” in Evidence Based Clinical Medicine II was not

because of my performance in that course, but rather because

! 18!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 19 of 27 PageID 1144

A-948
he had been told by other course directors or by Dr. Specter or

Dr. Stevenson that I had a “global deficiency” in multiple

classes. See Kumar Depo. at 48-49; 59-63.

Evidence I Was Singled Out to Fail Doctoring II in March 2013

56. At her deposition, Dr. Saundra Stock, the course director of

Doctoring II, initially claimed that the vast majority of students in

that course received the grade “S” for “Satisfactory” and that she

could not recall whether any students received a temporary grade

of “T” that they were later able to correct into an “S.” See Stock

Depo. at 69-71; and see id. at 89 (“I don’t think we ever did use a T

grade during the years I was one of the course directors.”)

57. Later in her deposition, it became clear that Stock’s initial

testimony on this issue was incorrect. She ultimately admitted that

thirty-five (35) other students in the Doctoring II course received a

temporary grade of “T” that granted them an opportunity to

correct their failure of the Doctoring II course. See Stock Depo. at

94-96 and Ex. 15.

58. This evidence shows that I was singled out to receive the non-

correctable grade of “U,” in contrast to thirty-five peers who were

allowed to correct their failing grades without being assigned a

“U.” I believe I was singled out to receive a “U” because Medical

! 19!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 20 of 27 PageID 1145

A-949
School administrators had decided to dismiss me from the

Medical School based on my disability or in retaliation for

requesting testing accommodations. The grade of “U” in

Doctoring II was assigned to justify the decision to dismiss me.

Evidence I Was Singled Out to Fail Evidence Based Clinical Reasoning II


In March 2013

59. During his deposition, Dr. Ambuj Kumar, course director of

Evidence Based Clinical Reasoning II (“EBCR II”), stated that the

reason I was given a non-correctable grade of “U” in that course

was because he had been told by other course directors and/or by

administrators that I had a “global deficiency” in multiple courses.

See Kumar Depo. at 48-49.

60. By contrast, Kumar admitted that 14 other students who failed

EBCR II received a temporary grade of “T” that granted them an

opportunity to correct their failure of the EBCR II course. See

Kumar Depo. at 62-63. These students were treated more

favorably simply because no one had told him that they had a

“global deficiency.” Id.

61. This policy of assigning final grades in EBCR II based on alleged

performance in other courses is fundamentally unfair and allowed

me to be singled out to fail EBCR II, based on my disability and/or

in retaliation for my request for disability accommodations.

! 20!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 21 of 27 PageID 1146

A-950
Failure to Record My Final Quiz Grade in EBCR II

62. At his deposition, Dr. Kumar claimed that I failed EBCR II

because I received a failing grade on the final Evidence Based

Medicine quiz in that course. See Kumar Depo. at 62 (stating that

the final Evidence Based Medicine quiz is “an objective test” and

that a student receiving less than 70 percent will receive either a T

or a U in the course.)

63. However, USF has admitted that Dr. Kumar failed to record my

grade on the exam and that the official percentile score on the

exam was never calculated. See Ex. J at 2-3.

64. The lack of record of my grade is suspicious and supports an

inference that Dr. Kumar did not determine my final grade in the

course, but rather allowed it to be determined by others based on

the allegation that I had a “global deficiency” in Medical School.

See Kumar Depo. at 48-49; 62-63.

Evidence That I Should Have Passed EBCR II

65. When I went to his office to discuss my final quiz grade, Dr.

Kumar orally reported to me that I had received a grade of 67.5%.

66. Dr. Kumar’s grade sheet for ECBR II, while it does not list my

final quiz grade, does show that seven other students received a

! 21!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 22 of 27 PageID 1147

A-951
final quiz grade of 67.5%. Every student who received that quiz

grade received a passing grade of “S” for Satisfactory in the

Course. See Kumar Depo. Ex. 16 at 1, 5, attached hereto as Exhibit

K.

67. Each of the seven students who passed with a final quiz grade of

67.5% also had a final presentation score of 4 out of 5 (80%) or 5

out of 5 (100%). Id. My own final presentation score was 4 out of 5.

68. What this shows is that other students with the same grades I had

in EBCR II received the passing grade of “S.” Yet despite having

grades that should have been sufficient to pass, I was singled out

to receive the failing grade of “U.”

Dr. Kumar’s Statements to Me About My Final Grade in EBCR II

69. When I asked Dr. Kumar to tell me whether I had passed EBCR

II, he declined to do so. Instead, he referred me to Dr. Stevenson

and Dr. Specter and indicated that the APRC would determine

my final grade in EBCR II. See Kumar Depo. at 48-49 and Ex. 15.

70. At his deposition, he attempted to explain this away by stating that

the reason he directed me to speak to Dr. Specter or Dr.

Stevenson is because he wanted me to know “you have much

bigger things to worry, go and meet these people and find out

what is going on.” Id. at 49.

! 22!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 23 of 27 PageID 1148

A-952
71. Nonetheless, the evidence as a whole supports an inference that

Dr. Kumar sent me to Specter and Stevenson to discuss my grade,

because I was assigned the grade of “U” in EBCR II based on

Specter and Stevenson’s opinion that I suffered from a “global

deficiency” rather than based on my performance in the EBCR II

course.

72. Had my grade been based solely on my performance in the course,

I would have received a final passing grade of “S.” Instead, I was

singled out based on my disability and/or retaliation, assigned a

“U” grade based on allegations that I had a “global deficiency” and

dismissed from Medical School. Meanwhile, fourteen of my

classmates with lower grades were treated more favorably, since

they were assigned the correctable grade of “T” and had the

opportunity to convert their “T” grade into a passing grade of “S.”

73. By contrast, I was denied the same opportunities to correct

alleged academic deficiencies that were available to my classmates.

Specifically, I was denied the same opportunity to correct

academic deficiencies that was granted to 14 of my peers in EBCR

II and 35 of my peers in Doctoring II.

! 23!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 24 of 27 PageID 1149

A-953
Temporal Proximity of Protected Activity

74. On March 12, 2013, I rejected Dr. Stevenson’s advice to take the

Comprehensive Basic Science Exam (“CBSE”) without

accommodations of my disability. See email chain between Fraser

Stevenson and Nausheen Zainulabeddin, dated March 12, 2013,

attached hereto as Exhibit L.

75. I believe Dr. Stevenson and Dr. Specter were angry that I rejected

Stevenson’s advice and insisted on requesting disability

accommodations for this important medical licensing

examination.

76. They had the opportunity to retaliate against me two days later, by

causing Dr. Kumar to assign me a grade of “U” in EBCR II (based

on their allegations of a “global deficiency”) and then causing the

APRC to dismiss me from Medical School.

Dr. Kumar’s Testimony that I Received a “U” in EBCR II


Based on My Performance in Other Courses

77. Dr. Kumar testified at his deposition that 14 other students in

EBCR II received a correctable “T” grade, and were therefore

allowed to convert their failing grades into a passing grade,

because no one had identified those other students to him as

having a “multiple global deficiency.” Kumar Depo. at 62-63. By

contrast, I received a non-correctable “U” grade because of my

! 24!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 25 of 27 PageID 1150

A-954
alleged “global deficiency” based on performance in other

courses. Id. at 48-49; 59-61.

78. Notably, Dr. Kumar claimed that there is a general policy of the

Medical School of determining whether a student will receive a

“T” or a “U” grade based on performance in other courses. See

Kumar Depo at 59. (“And there’s actually one global course

director who have record of every single course, so I call that

person and ask them, hey, here I have a student who, you know,

failed that exam, did not score satisfactory. Could you check me

what else is going on? And they say, oh, it’s good. Looks like no

failing elsewhere. This is a one off thing. All right. That is T. Oh,

boy, this guy has already failed four, so it goes U, so that’s how it

is.”)

79. Kumar’s testimony on this issue appears to be untrue. Dr. Stock,

the course director of Doctoring II, strongly denied the existence

of such a policy. See Stock Depo. at 131-32. Specifically, Stock

insisted that if she had spoken to other course directors about my

performance, it would not have influenced my grade in Doctoring

II. Id. at 132. Stock’s testimony on this important issue calls Dr.

Kumar’s credibility into question.

! 25!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 26 of 27 PageID 1151

A-955
80. Based on the evidence set forth herein, there are numerous

contested material facts requiring further exploration that will

only be possible at trial. There is also extensive evidence that the

only reason I was dismissed from Medical School in March 2013 is

because I was singled out to be treated differently than other

students. Had I been given the grade I earned in EBCR II I would

not have been dismissed from Medical School in March 2013.

Alternatively, had I been treated like the 35 students granted

correctable “T” grades in Doctoring II or the 14 students granted

correctable “T” grades in EBCR II, then I also would not have

been dismissed.

FURTHER DEPONENT SAYETH NOT.

! 26!
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 27 of 27 PageID 1152

A-956
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 16 PageID 1153

A-957

Exhibit A
A-958 Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document
University of South 28-2
Florida, Filed 02/19/17
Morsani
Tampa, Florida
College Page 2 of 16 PageID 1154
of Medicine
Name: Zainulabeddin, Nausheen Degree Sought: MD
ID Number: U55123583 Matriculation Date: 08/10/2009
Issued To: Unofficial - OCR
Academic Year 2009-2010 Academic Year 2012-2013
Course # Course Name Contact Hours Grade Course # Course Name Contact Hours Grade
BMS 5005 Profs of Med:Fndtns-Doctoring 64.5 S BMS 6041 Medical Sciences 5 190.0 S
BMS 6020 Medical Neuroscience 59.0 F BMS 6042 Medical Sciences 6 165.0 S
BMS 6100 Anatomy 161.5 P BMS 6043 Medical Sciences 7 135.0 S
BMS 6206 Molecular Medicine 185.5 PC BMS 6826 Doctoring II 190.0 U
BMS 6500 Physiology 88.5 F BMS 6826R Doctoring II - Remediation 0.0 S
BMS 6825 On Doctoring 45.0 H BMS 6837 Evid-Based Clin Reasoning II 35.0 U
BMS 6830A Physical Diagnosis I 53.5 F BMS 6837R EBCR II-Remediation 0.0 S
BMS 6840 Intro to Behavioral Medicine 50.5 F BMS 6920 Colloquium - Years I & II 11.0 S
BMS 6941A Longitudinal Clin Experience I 84.0 S
Leave of Absence 02/16/12 - 06/22/12
Academic Year 2010-2011 Dismissed from MD Program 05/28/13
Course # Course Name Contact Hours Grade
BMS 6633 Cardiovascular/Pulmonary Syst 176.0 P --End of Transcript--
BMS 6639 Excretory/Reproductive Syst 160.0 P
BMS 6640 Core Prin of Medical Science 156.0 PC
BMS 6641 Communications: Neuro/Endocrin 168.0 PC
BMS 6825 Doctoring I 250.0 S
BMS 6836 Evidence-Based Clin Reasoning 28.0 U
BMS 6836R Evid-Based Clin Reason Remed 0.0 S
Academic Year 2011-2012
Course # Course Name Contact Hours Grade
BMS 6041 Medical Sciences 1 190.0 F
BMS 6042 Medical Sciences 2 165.0 F
BMS 6043 Medical Sciences 3 135.0 W
BMS 6826 Doctoring II 190.0 W
BMS 6837 Evid-Based Clin Reasoning II 35.0 W
BMS 6992G Schol Conc 2-Med and Gender 10.0 WP
--Continued on Next Column--
CPX: Clinical Performance Examination This transcript is not official unless it bears an official signature and the embossed Seal of the Morsani College of Medicine.
CCEE: Comprehensive Clinical Evaluation Encounter
06 October 2014
Prior to the 2000-2001 academic year, contact hours were maintained in a legacy system and were
not transferred to the currently used system. Registrar Date Issued
12901 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., Tampa, FL 33612-4799
The highest grade a student remediating a course is eligible to receive is a P.
In accordance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, information from this transcript may not be
released to a third party without written consent of the student.
Page 1 of 1
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 3 of 16 PageID 1155

A-959

Exhibit B
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 4 of 16 PageID 1156

" A-960 1"

Ms. Zainulabeddin was required to repeat both Years I and II because of poor academic performance.
On her first attempt at Year II, she continued to have academic difficulty and was dismissed from the
MD program. When additional information related to testing accommodations became available, the
APRC reviewed its decision to dismiss her and voted to require her to repeat Year II instead.

Upon her repeat of Year II, Ms. Zainulabeddin earned U (Unsatisfactory) grades in Doctoring II and
Evidence Based Clinical reasoning II, and did not meet a level of proficiency in the ICM proficiency.
Because of the academic deficiencies recorded while she was on academic probation and repeating
Year II, the Committee voted to dismiss her from the College of Medicine MD Program. Ms.
Zainulabeddin continued remediation plans while in an appeal status and remediated all three
deficiencies. The APRC’s decision to dismiss her from the MD Program was sustained, however.

A more detailed summary follows:"

UNIVERSITY of SOUTH FLORIDA, MORSANI COLLEGE of MEDICINE


Tampa, Florida
STUDENT GRADE REPORT
Name: Zainulabeddin, Nausheen ID: U55123583 Class of: XDIS CORE
OGPA: SGPA: Class Rank Prior Colleges
3.35 3.03 Year I: 118 U OF SOUTH FLORIDA BS Honors Program 08/01/2007
MCAT AVG: Year II:
09/01/2007 7 Year III:
09/01/2008 8.667
USMLE Scores
"
Final Grades Highlighted
Year: 1
Started: 08/10/2009 Ended: 07/01/2010
Course # Course Title Grade End Date Chg Code
BMS 5005 Profs of Med:Fndtns-Doctoring S 08/21/2009 OE
BMS 6206 Molecular Medicine 81 PC 11/04/2009 OE
BMS 6020 Medical Neuroscience 69 F 05/21/2010 OE
BMS 6100 Anatomy 74 P 05/21/2010 OE
BMS 6500 Physiology 67 F 05/21/2010 OE
BMS 6825 On Doctoring 99 H 05/21/2010 OE
BMS 6830A Physical Diagnosis I 69 F 05/21/2010 OE
BMS 6840 Intro to Behavioral Medicine 69 F 05/21/2010 OE
BMS 6941A Longitudinal Clin Experience I I 05/21/2010 OE
BMS 6941A Longitudinal Clin Experience I S 07/01/2010 SG "
APRC Review Action Progress
Date Reason
06/03/10 F - Physiology, PD I, Med Neuro, Rpt Year 1 in entirety w/ class of 2014 on 8/2/10; Meet w/ Assoc Dean Acad Advisor - Dr.Karl
Behavior Med for Stu Aff to discuss methods to improve acad perf; Obtain a Muffly Rpts Rcvd -
comprehensive assessment of learning style as will be explained by Dr. 10/14/10; 1/21/11
Specter; Select/identify to Dr. Specter an acad advisor w/in 30 days/Meet
w/ advisor monthly throughout acad year-Advisor must submit reports to
Assoc Dean for Stu Aff after each meeting-Student's responsibility to
sched appointments w/ advisor; ACAD PROBATION; Further deficiencies
will result in addt'l action by APRC

"
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 5 of 16 PageID 1157

" A-961 2"

Year: 1
Started: 08/02/2010 Ended: 05/06/2011
Course # Course Title Grade End Date Chg Code
BMS 6640 Core Prin of Medical Science 80 PC 10/08/2010 OE
BMS 6641 Communications: Neuro/Endocrin 84 PC 12/17/2010 OE
BMS 6633 Cardiovascular/Pulmonary Syst 74 P 03/04/2011 OE
BMS 6639 Excretory/Reproductive Syst 79 P 05/06/2011 OE
BMS 6825 Doctoring I S 05/06/2011 OE
BMS 6836 Evidence-Based Clin Reasoning U 05/06/2011 OE "
APRC Review Action Progress
Date Reason
05/12/11 U - EBCR Retake/Pass EBCR exam; Obtain acad advisor from Year 2 faculty/notify Acad Advisor -
Assoc Dean of Stu Aff of choice w/in 30 days/Meet w/ advisor monthly Dr. Don Wheeler Rpts
throughout year until completion of Year 2-advisor must submit a report Rcvd - 10/4/11;
after each mtg; Meet w/ Year 2 course directors prior to beginning Year 2 11/15/11; 8/24/12;
in order to discuss methods for successful acad perf; Remain on ACAD 10/12/12; 12/10/12;
PROBATION; Year 1 reqs must be met before progressing to Year 2; 2/1/13
Further deficiencies will result in addt'l action by APRC

"
Year: 1
Started: 05/09/2011 Ended: 05/20/2011
Course # Course Title Grade End Date Chg Code
BMS 6836R Evid-Based Clin Reason Remed S 05/20/2011 OE "
Year: 2
Started: 07/18/2011 Ended: 02/06/12
Course # Course Title Grade End Date Chg Code
BMS 6041 Medical Sciences 1 F 09/30/2011 OE
BMS 6042 Medical Sciences 2 F 12/16/2011 OE
BMS 6837 Evid-Based Clin Reasoning II S 12/16/2011 OE
BMS 6837 Evid-Based Clin Reasoning II W 12/16/2011 SG
BMS 6992G Schol Conc 2-Med and Gender WP 01/27/2012 OE
BMS 6043 Medical Sciences 3 W 02/24/2012 OE
BMS 6826 Doctoring II W 02/24/2012 OE "
Comments
Leave of Absence 02/16/12 - 06/22/12 "
Year: 2
Started: 07/18/2011 Ended: 02/06/12
Course # Course Title Grade End Date Chg Code
BMS 6041 Medical Sciences 1 F 09/30/2011 OE "
APRC Review Action Progress
Date Reason
10/06/11 F - Medical Sciences I Pending successful completion of remainder of Year 2, remed Med
Sciences I; Adv of record is Dr. Wheeler-continue to meet w/ advisor
monthly until successful completion of Year 2; ACAD WARNING; Year 2
reqs must be met before progressing to Year 3; Further deficiencies will
result in addt'l action by APRC

"
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 6 of 16 PageID 1158

" A-962 3"

Year: 2
Started: 07/18/2011 Ended: 02/06/12
Course # Course Title Grade End Date Chg Code
BMS 6042 Medical Sciences 2 F 12/16/2011 OE
BMS 6837 Evid-Based Clin Reasoning II S 12/16/2011 OE
BMS 6837 Evid-Based Clin Reasoning II W 12/16/2011 SG
BMS 6992G Schol Conc 2-Med and Gender WP 01/27/2012 OE
BMS 6043 Medical Sciences 3 W 02/24/2012 OE
BMS 6826 Doctoring II W 02/24/2012 OE "
"
APRC Review Action Progress
Date Reason
01/05/12 F - Medical Sciences II Dismiss from COM MD Program

02/02/12 Appeal Dismissal Sustain original decision to dismiss

02/16/12 Review decision Due to new info which was not available at the previous meeting ,
the APRC voted to overturn its dismissal decision w/ stipulations:
Repeat Year 2 in its entirety w/ class of 2015 beginning 7/23/12; LOA
effective 2/16/12-7/22/12; permitted to audit Year 2 courses during LOA;
Meet w/ Assoc Dean for Stu Aff to discuss this deficiency and mech for
acad improvement; Acad advisor of record is Dr. Wheeler-continue to meet
w/ advisor monthly until successful completion of Year 2-advisor must
submit a report after each mtg; In coordination w/ advisor, Dr. Maher of
USF Counseling Ctr, Mr. Tetrault, acad tutor: create an organized
approach to study for Year 2; Continue enrollment in Kaplan Classroom
Anywhere course to develop successful strategies for (1)
Studying/Developing integrative habits (2) Addressing knowledge base
gaps; Remain on ACAD PROBATION; All Year 2 reqs must be met before
progressing to Year 3; Further deficiencies will result in addt'l action by
APRC

"
Comments
Leave of Absence 02/16/12 - 06/22/12 (Continued from earlier) "
Year: 2
Started: 07/23/2012 Ended: 03/08/2013
Course # Course Title Grade End Date Chg Code
BMS 6041 Medical Sciences 5 S 10/05/2012 OE
BMS 6042 Medical Sciences 6 I 12/21/2012 OE
BMS 6042 Medical Sciences 6 S 12/21/2012 SG
BMS 6920 Colloquium - Years I & II S 01/25/2013 OE
BMS 6043 Medical Sciences 7 S 03/08/2013 OE
BMS 6837 Evid-Based Clin Reasoning II I 12/21/2012 OE
BMS 6837 Evid-Based Clin Reasoning II U 12/21/2012 SG
BMS 6826 Doctoring II U 03/08/2013 OE "
APRC Review Action Progress
Date Reason
03/14/13 U - Doctoring II, EBCR II Dismiss from COM MD Program
ICM Proficiency "
Comments
Began Appeal Process "
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 7 of 16 PageID 1159

" A-963 4"

Year: 2
Started: 03/11/2013 Ended: 03/08/2013
Course # Course Title Grade End Date Chg Code
BMS 6826R Doctoring II - Remediation S 05/03/2013 OE
BMS 6837R EBCR II-Remediation S 04/03/2013 OE "
Comments
Remediated ICM proficiency 03/15/13 "
APRC Review Action Progress
Date Reason
04/04/13 Appeal Dismissal Sustain original decision
05/03/13 Appeal to Dean Dr. Klasko reviewed the subcommittee report, met with student on 5/21/13,
and confirmed the decision to uphold the dismissal as of 5/28/13
"
Comments
Dismissed from MD Program 05/28/13 "
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 8 of 16 PageID 1160

A-964

Exhibit C
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 9 of 16 PageID 1161

A-965
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 10 of 16 PageID 1162

A-966
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 11 of 16 PageID 1163

A-967

Exhibit D
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 12 of 16 PageID 1164

A-968
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 13 of 16 PageID 1165

A-969
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 14 of 16 PageID 1166

A-970
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 15 of 16 PageID 1167

A-971
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-2 Filed 02/19/17 Page 16 of 16 PageID 1168

A-972
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID 1169

A-973

Exhibit E
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 2 of 8 PageID 1170

A-974
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 3 of 8 PageID 1171

A-975
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 4 of 8 PageID 1172

A-976
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 5 of 8 PageID 1173

A-977
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 6 of 8 PageID 1174

A-978
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 7 of 8 PageID 1175

A-979
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-3 Filed 02/19/17 Page 8 of 8 PageID 1176

A-980
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID 1177

A-981

Exhibit F
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 2 of 15 PageID 1178

A-982
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 3 of 15 PageID 1179

A-983
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 4 of 15 PageID 1180

A-984
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 5 of 15 PageID 1181

A-985

Exhibit G
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 6 of 15 PageID 1182

A-986
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 7 of 15 PageID 1183

A-987
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 8 of 15 PageID 1184

A-988
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 9 of 15 PageID 1185

A-989
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 10 of 15 PageID 1186

A-990
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 11 of 15 PageID 1187

A-991
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 12 of 15 PageID 1188

A-992
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 13 of 15 PageID 1189

A-993

Exhibit H
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 14 of 15 PageID 1190
Thursday,*January*12,*2017*at*10:19:35*PM*Eastern*Standard*Time

Subject: RE: A-994


Date: Thursday,-February-23,-2012-at-12:40:26-AM-Eastern-Standard-Time
From: Stock,-Saundra
To: Zainulabeddin,-Nausheen
you-are-more-than-welcome.-the-Fming-was-fine.-hope-all-goes-well-for-you-between-now-and-July.--
________________________________________
From:-Zainulabeddin,-Nausheen
Sent:-Saturday,-February-18,-2012-7:32-AM
To:-Stock,-Saundra
Subject:-RE:

Dear-Dr.-Stock,

Thank-you-for-taking-Fme-out-of-your-busy-schedule-to-go-over-strategies-for-success-for-next-year.-Sorry-the-meeFng
lasted-longer-than-expected.-But,-it-was-extremely-helpful.

Nausheen-Zainulabeddin,-MS-II
USF-College-of-Medicine

________________________________________
From:-Zainulabeddin,-Nausheen
Sent:-Wednesday,-February-15,-2012-1:40-PM
To:-Stock,-Saundra
Subject:-RE:

That-works.-Let-me-know-where-in-Silver-Learning-Center-I-should-meet-you.
Thanks!

Nausheen-Zainulabeddin

________________________________________
From:-Stock,-Saundra
Sent:-Wednesday,-February-15,-2012-12:45-PM
To:-Zainulabeddin,-Nausheen
Subject:-RE:

Friday-at-8:30AM-at-silver-child-development-center-\-a]ached-to-psych-building-but-faces-morsani-and-parking
garage.-does-that-work-for-you?
________________________________________
From:-Zainulabeddin,-Nausheen
Sent:-Tuesday,-February-14,-2012-3:10-PM
To:-Stock,-Saundra
Subject:

Dear-Dr.-Stock,

My-name-is-Nausheen-Zainulabeddin.-I-was-a-former-Class-Liaison-for-MSII.-I-am-currently-dismissed-from-USF-COM
undergoing-appeal-process.-It-has-come-to-my-recent-a]enFon-that-I-have-a-confirm-diagnosis-of-my-underlying
ADHD.-I-wanted-your-advice-while-going-through-this-appeal-process.-Are-you-available-anyFme-during-the-week?
Thank-You

Page*1*of*2
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-4 Filed 02/19/17 Page 15 of 15 PageID 1191

Nausheen-Zainulabeddin
A-995

Page*2*of*2
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 24 PageID 1192

A-996

Exhibit I
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 2 of 24 PageID 1193

Comprehensive MedPsych Systems, Inc.


Geoffrey Kanter, Ph.D., ABN, ABPdN
American Board of Professional
Neuropsychology
American Board of Pediatric Neuropsychology
A-997
President
Robert Stephenson, Psy.D.
Abbreviated Neuropsychological Evaluation
Chief Operating Officer
Clinical Director

NEUROPSYCHOLOGY Name: Nausheen Zainulabeddin


Nancy Parsons, Ph.D., ABPdN
American Board of Pediatric Neuropsychology Date of Birth: 07/03/1984
Paula Cooper, Ph.D., ABN Chronological Age: 29 years
American Board of Professional
Neuropsychology Gender: Female
Larry E. Schutz, Ph.D., ABPP-ABRP
American Board of Rehabilitation Psychology
Date of Evaluation: 03/07/2014
Maryla Madura, Ph.D.
Edwin L. Bercaw, Ph.D.
Stefanie Mihalopoulos, Ph.D.
Robb Matthews, Ph.D. IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AND REASON FOR REFERRAL
Kyle Cieply, Ph.D.
Kathy Baum, Ph.D.
Pritesh Parbhoo, Psy.D. Nausheen Zainulabeddin is a 29-year-old female who was seen for an
Sharon Arffa, Ph.D., MPPM
Hollie Dean Hill, Psy.D.
evaluation to assess her current level of functioning and eligibility for
Post-Doctoral Resident vocational rehabilitation services. She was referred for the evaluation by
Lene Stauffer, BS, Psychometrician Rockne Lee from the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation.
PSYCHIATRY
Board Certified PROCEDURES
Diane Miller, M.D., ABPN
Steven Cohen, D.O., ABPN Review of Available Records
Abdul Nadeem, M.D., ABPN
Rebecca Cohen, M.D., ABPN Clinical Interview
Mark Sylvester, M.D., ABPN
Edward Killeen, M.D., ABPN Observation
Michele Babin, M.D., ABPN
Kristine Vallrugo, M.D., ABPN Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Fourth Edition
Teri Callender, LCSW, PA-C
Woodcock-Johnson III Normative Update Tests of Achievement
Kelly Van Beck, Medical Assistant
Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning II (select subtests)
TMS Coordinator Trail Making Test
Jessica Bawcom, B.A.
TMS Technician Boston Naming Test
PSYCHOLOGY
Controlled Oral Word Association Test
Donald McMurray, Ph.D. Rey Complex Figure Test
Wendy Sims, Ph.D.
Tammy Saltzman-Gorn, Psy.D.
IVA+
Claudia Zsigmond, Psy.D.
Dale Simpson, Ph.D.
Green’s  Word  Memory  Test
PSYCHOTHERAPY
Paul Zitowitz, LCSW
Raymond Roitman, D.Psa, LCSW
Janet Carlson, LCSW
Jean Ross, LCSW
Teri Callender, LCSW, PA-C
Kathryn Bliss, LMHC
Kenton Kauffman, LCSW
Kim Jacobsen, LMHC
Catherine Luckner, LMHC
Laura Zane-Nwagbaraocha, LMHC
Steve Steiner, LCSW
Kathleen Zitowitz, RN, LCSW
Nancy Dring, Ed.D., LMHC, EEG-BCIA
Gerald Rivera, LCSW
Marlene Larose, LMFT
Jennifer Barmash, LCSW

ADDICTIONS COUNSELING
1250 South Tamiami Trail, Suite 201 Sarasota, Florida 34239
Carrie Phelps, LMHC, CAP
941.363.0878 (office) * 941.363.0527 (fax) * www.medpsych.net
Sarasota - Venice - Lakewood Ranch – Bradenton - North Port - Port Charlotte - Tampa
Cook 001214
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 3 of 24 PageID 1194

A-998
CURRENT CONCERNS

Upon interview, Nausheen reported experiencing longstanding attention-related


difficulties. Reported attention-related difficulties began in childhood and include difficulty
focusing, being highly distractible, making simple mistakes, and difficulty following
instructions. She denied experiencing any current mental health issues; however, she
reported having anxiety (i.e., had a panic attack five years ago in addition to sleep
difficulties) and depression (i.e., suicidality in May 2013) in the past. She communicated
that   her   mental   health   issues   were   due   to   her   cousin’s   death   in   December   2012,  
grandmother’s   death in February 2013, and medical school dismissal in May 2013.
Nausheen reported learning and utilizing effective coping skills to deal with her life
stressors. She denied any current appetite or sleep issues. She reported currently not being
able to have a social life due to her financial issues. She indicated wanting assistance from
the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation to help her get back into medical school.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Nausheen currently resides alone in Temple Terrace, Florida. She was born in Pakistan and
relocated to the United States when she was two years old. She moved to the Tampa Bay
area when she was 12 years old. She has two siblings (ages 16 and 24) who reside with her
parents. She is currently unemployed and not in school and as a result, she is supported
financially by her parents. In addition, she has never had formal employment but has
volunteered as a tutor.

Nausheen received her B.S. in Biomedical Sciences in 2007 from the University of South
Florida. She had a 3.3 GPA in   undergraduate.   She   began   a   master’s   program   in   Medical  
Sciences in 2007 but was unable to complete that degree due to her failing one class. She
had  a  3.7  GPA  in  her  master’s  program  not  including  the  class  that  she  failed.  In  addition,  
she reported receiving   accommodations   throughout   her   master’s   program   except   in   the  
class she failed. She also was not taking her medication when she failed the class. She took
the MCAT several times over the course of three to four years and finally received an
acceptable score (26) in September 2008. She did not receive accommodations on the
MCAT. She had the most difficulty on the reading portion of the MCAT. She began medical
school in 2009 but failed the 2009-2010 and 2011-2012 academic years. She was able to
repeat the 2009-2010 academic year and performed adequately (although not on
medication and without accommodations) due to already having taken the required
courses. She was dismissed after failing the 2011-2012 academic year, but appealed the
dismissal and was reinstated with accommodations and treatment via medication. She was
again dismissed from medical school in March 2013 due to having incomplete work in
addition to a history of poor academic performance. She appealed the dismissal but was
denied readmission. She indicated that she is currently studying for the Step 1 exam
through Kaplan.

Nausheen is currently in good physical health. She is currently taking Adderall for
treatment of ADHD, which she reported as effective. She was prescribed Concerta when she

Cook 001215
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 4 of 24 PageID 1195

A-999
was first diagnosed with ADHD in 2008 but reported it as ineffective. In addition, she was
prescribed Propanol in 2010 due to her psychiatrist believing that she had anxiety.
However, she indicated that the medication was ineffective and caused her to experience
negative side effects. She denied a history of head injury or seizures. She denied any
psychiatric hospitalizations. Her brother has undiagnosed ADHD and learning issues but
receives accommodations in school due to his medical issues.

Nausheen was diagnosed with ADHD in 2008 by a psychiatrist. She received a


neuropsychological evaluation by Dr. Mike Schoenberg in 2010 and was diagnosed with
“ADHD-inattentive type and Anxiety with depression NOS, moderate to severe.”   WAIS-IV
scores were as follows: VCI=89, PRI=86, WMI=92, PSI=94, and FSIQ=87. WIAT-II scores
were as follows: Reading=84, Reading Comprehension=111, Spelling=106, and
Arithmetic=112. She reported being in ESOL until age 10 due to being born in Pakistan. She
indicated  having  “a  lot”  of  tutoring while in primary and secondary school but passed every
FCAT. She reported having the most difficulty with math and Spanish while in high school.
She received a 1010 (1600 is perfect) on the SAT after taking it several times.

FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS

This evaluation took place during one testing session. Nausheen was appropriately dressed
and groomed, with adequate basic functioning and hygiene. Rapport was mostly easy to
establish. Her conversational proficiency was average for her age. Nausheen was
cooperative throughout testing and appeared to put forth good and consistent effort. She
was persistent on difficult tasks. She appeared to have some difficulty maintaining focus
and would often ask for questions to be repeated. She frequently asked questions about
how respond to particular tasks as she had difficulty following instructions. In addition, she
often asked if the task was timed. No articulation problems were evident. She worked
quickly throughout the evaluation. In addition, she tended to make simple mistakes,
especially on math-related tasks. She did not take her stimulant medication on the day of
testing. Hearing was normal and unaided. Vision was aided with eyeglasses.

Nausheen appeared for the evaluation alert and well oriented (able to state her name,
mother’s  name,  date  of  birth,  day  of  week,  city,  state,  and  last  two  Presidents).  She did not
evidence symptoms of psychosis, such as hallucinations, delusions, or ideas of reference.
Nausheen denied any compulsions or obsessions. She did not show homicidal or suicidal
tendencies. She provided her personal history, and it seemed reliable. Nausheen was able
to recall a three word list immediately and then five minutes later she recalled two of the
words. She was able to spell the word WORLD forwards and backwards. Nausheen was
able to complete simple math calculations. Her judgment and insight into her difficulties
are poor as she appeared to downplay the severity of her mental health issues. Speech and
thought processes were goal-directed, logical, and coherent. There was no evidence of a
formal thought disorder.

Motivation/Effort

One component of the evaluation is an assessment for appropriate effort and motivation

Cook 001216
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 5 of 24 PageID 1196

A-1000
and consistency of motivation during the evaluation. On a comprehensive test of cognitive
effort, Nausheen achieved passing scores on all indices. Results suggested that she
exhibited consistent effort and motivation on cognitive testing, and obtained scores that
accurately estimate her true cognitive capabilities.

Intellectual

On the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV), Nausheen’s overall
intellectual functioning fell within the Low Average range. Her FSIQ was a standard score of
89. However, her GAI, a measure of overall cognitive capability factoring out attentional
issues, was a standard score of 95.1 Her verbal (96) and perceptual reasoning (94) abilities
fell within the Average range, and her working memory (89) and processing speed (81)
abilities fell within the Low Average range. Specifically, her perceptual organization fell
within the Superior range. Her range of factual knowledge, numerical reasoning abilities,
abstract verbal reasoning abilities, and word knowledge fell within the Average range. Her
psychomotor speed and accuracy, visual-motor coordination, visual-spatial coordination,
and immediate auditory memory fell within the Low Average range.

Academic

Nausheen’s academic skills were measured by the Woodcock Johnson – Third Edition:
Tests of Achievement. Her overall academic achievement score fell within the Average
range (102). Her broad written language (101), broad reading (96), broad mathematics
(96), math calculation skills (98), written expression (97), ability to apply academic skills
(97), and academic fluency (90; the speed at which she can complete academic tasks) fell
within the Average range. Specifically, Nausheen’s  ability to orally supply the missing word
from a sentence, analyze and solve math problems, spell orally presented words correctly,
perform simple mathematical computations quickly, write sentences according to
directions, read words aloud from a list, write simple sentences quickly, and perform
mathematical computations fell within the Average range. Her ability to read sentences
quickly  and  respond  “yes”  or  “no”  to  each correctly fell within the Low Average range. No
significant discrepancies were found among her reading, writing, and math achievement
scores.

Abbreviated Neuropsychological

Overall auditory and visual attention performance on the IVA (a 15-minute long, boring
vigilance task) was below average. Selected subtests of the WRAML-II were administered
and she performed in the Low Average range for both immediate and delayed recall of
auditory memory. She also performed in the Low Average range on the recognition portion
of this task. Graphomotor accuracy and spatial awareness copying a complex geometric

1
This examiner recommends use of Nausheen’s General Ability Index (GAI), as opposed to the Full Scale IQ,
due to her depressed working memory and processing speed abilities. It is recommended practice to derive
the GAI when there are large disparities among the Composite/Index scores.

Cook 001217
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 6 of 24 PageID 1197

A-1001
design (the Rey Complex Figure) was average. She performed in the Impaired range for
immediate and delayed recall of visual stimuli. She performed in the Borderline range on
the recognition portion of this task. On a test of persistence, attentiveness, and visual
scanning, her processing speed was in the Average range, with no errors. On a similar but
more complex task requiring greater organizational and planning skills, her score was in
the Average range, again with no sequencing errors. On the Working Memory index of the
WAIS-IV, she performed in the Low Average range for attention and working memory. In
terms of language functioning, her naming abilities were found to be in the Impaired range.
She performed in the Low Average range on a timed test of verbal fluency and reasoning.

SUMMARY

Nausheen is a 29-year-old female who was seen for an evaluation to assess her current
level of functioning and eligibility for vocational rehabilitation services. She was referred
for the evaluation by Rockne Lee from the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation.

During the clinical interview and throughout the formal testing, Nausheen presented as a
cooperative yet anxious individual. Her mental status was within normal limits. Motivation
and effort on cognitive testing appeared consistent as she passed a comprehensive test of
effort and motivation. As a result, results of cognitive testing are deemed as a valid
indicator of her true cognitive functioning.

Nausheen’s overall intellectual ability fell within the Low Average and Average ranges
(FSIQ=89, GAI=95), which is commensurate with previous testing. Her verbal (96) and
perceptual reasoning (94) abilities fell within the Average range, and her working memory
(89) and processing speed (81) abilities fell within the Low Average range. Overall,
intellectual testing revealed relative weaknesses in her working memory and processing
speed abilities. In addition, results of an abbreviated neuropsychological evaluation
evidenced weaknesses in naming abilities, attention, and visual memory. Results of a
previous neuropsychological evaluation indicated a diagnosis of ADHD and results of the
current evaluation were commensurate with that diagnosis. Nausheen reported
longstanding attention-related difficulties and current treatment via medication. As a result
of a review of all available information, Nausheen will be diagnosed with Attention-
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Predominantly Inattentive Type.

Regarding academic achievement, Nausheen’s   overall   academic   abilities   fell within the
Average range (102), which is mostly commensurate with previous testing. Her overall
writing (101), reading (96), and math (96) skills were average. In addition, her academic
fluency (90) was average. Overall, no significant academic issues were reported by
Nausheen and testing was mostly commensurate with her report and intellectual
functioning. As a result, Nausheen will not receive a specific learning-related disorder
diagnosis. Any learning difficulties are felt to be residual to her ADHD and anxiety.

From a psychological perspective, Nausheen denied experiencing current mental health


issues; however, she reported experiencing anxiety and depression symptoms in the past

Cook 001218
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 7 of 24 PageID 1198

A-1002
residual   to   life   stressors   (i.e.,   her   cousin’s   and   grandmother’s   deaths and her dismissal
from medical school). In addition, she admitted to having suicidal ideation at the time of
her medical school dismissal. A previous evaluation indicated anxiety and depression
symptoms and she was previously treated for these symptoms via medication. Although,
Nausheen denied experiencing current related symptoms, she is felt to have poor insight
into her difficulties and appeared anxious during the evaluation. In addition, psychological
testing was not administered as it was not requested by the Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation. She also may be downplaying the severity of her mental health symptoms
due to cultural factors or her desire to be readmitted into medical school. However, her
anxiety may significantly exacerbate her attention-related difficulties if not properly
treated. As a result of a review of all available information, Nausheen will receive a rule out
for Anxiety Disorder Not Otherwise Specified.

Regarding employability and educational ability, no significant intellectual issues were


found; however, her average intellectual functioning may make it difficult for her to
complete medical school and subsequently work as a physician due to the complexity of
related tasks. It is not impossible, but her average intellectual functioning will most likely
make it difficult. In addition, significant attentional issues were found that are felt to
impact her ability to perform certain work and education-related tasks due to poor
attentional control, being easily distracted, and difficulty completing detail-oriented tasks.
Her anxiety symptoms and lack of insight may also negatively impact her ability to be
successful in a highly stressful work or educational environment. In addition, if she is
focused on completing medical school and becoming a physician, she needs to learn better
coping skills as to not let life stressors, big or small, affect her so intensely. However, she is
felt to have a strong work ethic and be determined to complete medical school, which may
play in her favor and help her complete related requirements. No physical limitations were
reported or evident that are felt to affect her ability to work.

DIAGNOSIS:

Axis I: (314.00) Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Predominantly Inattentive


Type
Rule Out Anxiety Disorder Not Otherwise Specified
Axis II: (V71.09) No Diagnosis
Axis III: None
Axis IV: Educational stressors, financial stressors
Axis V: Current GAF 55

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Based on test results and interpretations made in this report, the following
recommendations are offered:

1. Due to Nausheen’s  ADHD, medical school personnel are encouraged to provide her
with the following accommodations: (a) preferential seating in the front of the

Cook 001219
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 8 of 24 PageID 1199

A-1003
classroom, (b) use of an agenda book, (c) taking exams in a quiet environment (i.e.,
separate room) with few distractions, (d) receiving extra time (50%, time and a
half) on assignments and exams, (e) ability to record class lectures, and (i) receipt
of PowerPoint presentations before class time.

2. Individual counseling is recommended to help Nausheen understand and deal with


her emotions and have better control over them. Counseling efforts might focus on
teaching her strategies for improving her attentional control, helping her gain
insight into her difficulties, addressing her anxiety symptoms, helping her cope with
life stressors, and teaching her necessary coping skills.

3. A medication evaluation with a psychiatrist is recommended to determine the


appropriate treatment for her mental health and ADHD symptoms.

4. Nausheen may benefit from the following books: SOS help for emotions: Managing
anxiety, anger, and depression (2nd Edition) by Lynn Clark, The anxiety and phobia
workbook (5th Edition) by Edmund Bourne, More attention, less deficit: Success
strategies for adults with ADHD by Ari Tuckman, and Taking charge of adult ADHD
by Russell Barkley.

5. Given Nausheen’s   elevated   levels   of   anxiety,   she   would   likely   benefit   from  
instruction in some relaxation strategies (e.g., deep breathing, imagery, yoga). In
addition, she should be taught to utilize positive self-statements when encountering
difficulties.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in Nausheen’s care. Please contact me at (941)
363-0878 or by e-mail at drstefanie@medpsych.net should you have any additional
questions or concerns.

Stefanie J. Mihalopoulos, Ph.D.


Licensed Psychologist / Neuropsychologist
FL License #: PY8604
Comprehensive MedPsych Systems, Inc.

Cook 001220
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 9 of 24 PageID 1200

A-1004
SUMMARY OF TEST SCORES

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Fourth Edition


Composite Score Average = 100 + 15
Scaled Score Average = 10 + 3

General Ability Index=95

Scale Composite Percentile 90% Confidence Classification


Score Rank Interval
Verbal Comprehension (VCI) 96 39 91-101 Average
Perceptual Reasoning (PRI) 94 34 89-100 Average
Working Memory (WMI) 89 23 84-95 Low Average
Processing Speed (PSI) 81 10 76-90 Low Average
Full Scale (FSIQ) 89 23 86-93 Low Average

Subtests Scaled
Score
Block Design 7
Similarities 9
Digit Span 6
Matrix Reasoning 14
Vocabulary 9
Arithmetic 10
Symbol Search 7
Visual Puzzles 6
Information 10
Coding 6

Cook 001221
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 10 of 24 PageID 1201

A-1005
Woodcock-Johnson III (Normative Update): Tests of Achievement
CLUSTER / Test Average = 100 + 15

Standard 95% Confidence AE GE


Cluster Score Interval
Academic Skills 102 99-104 >30 13.0
Academic Fluency 90 88-92 13-4 7.9
Academic Applications 97 96-99 18-8 12.7
Broad Reading 96 95-97 16-4 10.9
Broad Mathematics 96 95-98 16-8 11.3
Broad Written Language 101 98-104 >28 13.0
Math Calculation Skills 98 96-101 17-8 12.0
Written Expression 97 94-99 14-6 9.1

Subtests Scaled
Score
Letter-Word Identification 97
Reading Fluency 88
Calculation 103
Math Fluency 90
Spelling 106
Writing Fluency 96
Passage Comprehension 103
Applied Problems 94
Writing Samples 97

Cook 001222
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 11 of 24 PageID 1202

A-1006

Exhibit J
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 12 of 24 PageID 1203

A-1007
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 13 of 24 PageID 1204

A-1008
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 14 of 24 PageID 1205

A-1009
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 15 of 24 PageID 1206

A-1010
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 16 of 24 PageID 1207

A-1011

Exhibit K
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 17 of 24 PageID 1208
A-1012
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 18 of 24 PageID 1209
A-1013
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 19 of 24 PageID 1210

A-1014

Exhibit L
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 20 of 24 PageID 1211
RE: CBSE Reminder 7/13/16, 1:39 PM

RE: CBSE Reminder A-1015


Zainulabeddin, Nausheen
Tue 3/12/2013 5:20 PM

To: Stevenson, Frazier <fstevens@health.usf.edu>; Collins, Roberta <rcollins@health.usf.edu>;

Cc:Specter, Steven <sspecter@health.usf.edu>;

Thank You Dr. Stevenson,


Yes, I would like to have accommodations for the exam since it has been extremely helpful and enabled me to pass the
course year. Unfortunately, I have not had any preparation time for CBSE and it would not reflect my competency. I have
brought this up to Dr. Specter and he recommended to take FIRST CBSE 2 weeks later. Due to unforeseen circumstances this
year, I am still making up examinations, OSCE etc and finishing off the course year.

Thank You

Nausheen Zainulabeddin, MS II
USF Morsani College of Medicine

From: Stevenson, Frazier


Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 5:03 PM
To: Zainulabeddin, Nausheen; Collins, Roberta
Cc: Specter, Steven
Subject: RE: CBSE Reminder

You are not obligated to take any one administration of the CBSE. But realize, it gets harder to “pass” each
time.

I would STRONGLY advise you to take the CBSE under the same testing conditions as you will use for Step
1. If that means no accommodations, then use no accommodations. Please speak with Dr. Specter or me
before requesting these accommodations. We want you to succeed on Step one.

FS

Frazier Stevenson, M.D.


Professor of Medicine
Associate Dean, Undergraduate Medical Educa<on
USF Health Morsani College of Medicine
University of South Florida, Tampa Bay

From: Zainulabeddin, Nausheen


Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 5:01 PM
To: Collins, Roberta
Cc: Stevenson, Frazier

https://outlook.office.com/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemI…lowWuke%2FJAACMfu0SAAA%3D&IsPrintView=1&wid=4&ispopout=1&path= Page 1 of 5
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 21 of 24 PageID 1212
RE: CBSE Reminder 7/13/16, 1:39 PM

Subject: RE: CBSE Reminder


A-1016
Dear Dr. Stevenson, Mrs. Collins and Dr. Specter,

I had talked to Dr. Specter last week regarding CBSE. I have been making up examinations throughout past 2 weeks
including EBCR exam I will be taking tomorrow. Dr. Specter recommended taking CBSE March 28th as 1st assessment as I
have not prepared at all. I am going through the process of submitting all materials for accommodations for USMLE exam. I
am requesting double time accommodations for CBSE on March 28th. Let me know if anything else is required on my behalf.
Thank You

Nausheen Zainulabeddin, MS II
USF Morsani College of Medicine

From: Collins, Roberta


Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 4:05 PM
To: List: COM 2015 Mail List (2015)
Cc: Stevenson, Frazier; Nazian, Stanley; Sawyer, Chad; Ramsamooj, Michael; Collins, Roberta
Subject: CBSE Reminder

Good AFernoon,
One last reminder prior to the examina1on: Examinees are to open Internet Explorer (Windows) or Safari
(Mac) – no Firefox or Chrome. Load the following URL in the search line hPp://wbt.nbme.org/exam. At that
<me, the student will be asked to download a secure browser. Follow the instruc<ons for the download. Click
on the PRIOR TO TEST DAY icon for an exam compa<bility check. If ok, the screen will prompt the student to
launch a prac<ce test to complete the process. This link has a tutorial (highly recommend you view this) as
well as a 10 ques<on Prac<ce Test. Please review at your own pace. Hold “CONTROL”, “SHIFT” AND “Q”
buGons to escape this screen. This will return you to the secure browser download screen. In addi<on, be
sure to completely read the aPachments to this email.

Please delete ALL previously downloaded secure browsers before you arrive at the tes1ng room (1096/1097)
on Thursday.

Remember, unlike the Step 1, there are no built-in breaks aFer each sec<on of the exam.
Best Regards,

Bobby
Roberta (Bobby) Collins
Academic Service Administrator, Special Projects
Execu1ve Chief Proctor, NBME
(813)-974-5793
If life was fair, Elvis would be alive and all the impersonators would
be dead.--Johnny Carson
I am easily satisfied with the very best - Winston Churchill

https://outlook.office.com/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemI…lowWuke%2FJAACMfu0SAAA%3D&IsPrintView=1&wid=4&ispopout=1&path= Page 2 of 5
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 22 of 24 PageID 1213
RE: CBSE Reminder 7/13/16, 1:39 PM

From: Lewis, Trevor


Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 3:14 PM
To: List: COM 2015 Mail List (2015)
A-1017
Cc: Collins, Roberta
Subject: CSBE Reminder
Importance: High

Pardon the interruption,

Just a reminder for this Thursday's CSBE in 1096/1097:

Do bring:
Computer
Power cord
Mouse (if you want)
Ear plugs (foamies without cables/strings)
Ethernet cable
USF student ID (not medical student badge)
car/house keys (will be left in bin with proctor)
Yourself
Don't bring:
Anything else (including food, wallets, candy, drinks, etc.)

Mrs. Collins is Cc'd on here if you have any further questions that aren't addressed in the above/below messages.

Happy studying,
Nicole and Trevor

From: Lewis, Trevor


Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 6:06 PM
To: List: COM 2015 Mail List (2015)
Subject: FW: MDA 1096-1097

Hey everyone,

Below is an email from Bobby Collins about the CSBE. Scroll down if you want to read it all.

High Yield
She will be speaking to us Feb 25th after the mandatory TBL class about registration for the CSBE.
1096/1097 not open for business Wednesday, March 13th, 1pm until Thursday, March 14th, after the last CSBE test
taker is finished.
CSBE will be delivered in 2 sessions on Thursday, March 14th

https://outlook.office.com/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemI…lowWuke%2FJAACMfu0SAAA%3D&IsPrintView=1&wid=4&ispopout=1&path= Page 3 of 5
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 23 of 24 PageID 1214
RE: CBSE Reminder 7/13/16, 1:39 PM

A-1017
Students will be split based on last names starting with:
A,C,E,G,I,J,K,M,O,Q,S,U,W = AM session (check in starting 07:15 AM, doors closed at 07:30, exam
starting at 07:50 AM)
B,D,F,H,L,N,P,R,T,V,X,Y,Z = PM session (check in starting at 12:30 PM, doors closed at 12:45, exam
starting at 1:05 PM)
In case you haven't heard, the CSBE is required for everyone.

Happy studying,
Nicole and Trevor

From: Collins, Roberta


Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 3:13 PM
To: Lewis, Trevor; Teal, Elizabeth
Cc: Specter, Steven; Stevenson, Frazier; Steiger, Wendy; Nazian, Stanley; Wheeler, Donald; Kumar, Mudra
Subject: MDA 1096-1097

Good AFernoon Trevor and Nicole,


This is to let you know that the MDA 1096 and 1097 classrooms will be out of commission for Step 1 studying
space on Wednesday, March 13th from 1 PM onwards and all day Thursday, March 14th. We
need to set up the room for the Na<onal Board of Medical Examiners Comprehensive Basic Science
Examina<on (CBSE).

I am not sure if you were aware but I am the Execu<ve Chief Proctor for the Na<onal Board of Medical
Examiners for the Morsani College of Medicine. Please share with your classmates that I will be speaking to
them immediately aFer the required TBL session on Monday, February 25th. I will discuss the NBME protocols
that must be followed for the NBME exams.

Students will be split based on last names star<ng with…..
A,C,E,G,I,J,K,M,O,Q,S,U,W = AM session (check in star<ng 07:15 AM, doors closed at 07:30, exam
star<ng at 07:50 AM)
B,D,F,H,L,N,P,R,T,V,X,Y,Z = PM session (check in star<ng at 12:30 PM, doors closed at 12:45, exam
star<ng at 1:05 PM)

Please note, all exam <mes on the 3/14/13 date are approximate. They will be finalized closer to the CBSE test
date.

Many Thanks.
Best Regards,

Bobby
Roberta (Bobby) Collins
Academic Service Administrator, Special Projects
Execu1ve Chief Proctor, NBME

https://outlook.office.com/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemI…lowWuke%2FJAACMfu0SAAA%3D&IsPrintView=1&wid=4&ispopout=1&path= Page 4 of 5
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 28-5 Filed 02/19/17 Page 24 of 24 PageID 1215
RE: CBSE Reminder 7/13/16, 1:39 PM

A-1018

rcollins@health.usf.edu
(o) 813-974-5793 (f) 974-2976
If life was fair, Elvis would be alive and all the impersonators would
be dead.--Johnny Carson

https://outlook.office.com/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemI…lowWuke%2FJAACMfu0SAAA%3D&IsPrintView=1&wid=4&ispopout=1&path= Page 5 of 5
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1216

A-1019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

NAUSHEEN ZAINULABEDDIN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 8-16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA


BOARD OF TRUSTEES,

Defendant.
______________________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF FILING DEPOSITION


OF STEVEN SPECTER, Ph.D.,
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the

Plaintiff, Nausheen Zainulabeddin, by and through her undersigned counsel,

hereby files the following Deposition transcript, in support of Plaintiff’s

Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Exhibit A: Deposition of Dr. Steven Specter, Ph.D., with Exhibits

Thereto
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29 Filed 02/19/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1217

A-1020
Respectfully submitted on this 19th day of February, 2017.

/s/ Stanley R. Apps

Stanley R. Apps, Esq.


FL Bar. No. 0108868
Stanley R. Apps, P.A.
1950 Elkhorn Ct., Unit 147
San Mateo, CA 94403
(310) 709-3966
stan.apps@gmail.com
Attorney for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 19, 2017, I electronically filed the


foregoing with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will
send a Notice of Electronic Filing to all counsel of record herein.

/s/ Stanley R. Apps


Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 1 of 182 PageID 1218

A-1021
·1· · · · · · · · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
· · · · · · · ·FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·TAMPA DIVISION

·3· · · · · · CASE NUMBER: 8-16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW

·4

·5· ·NAUSHEEN ZAINULABEDDIN,

·6· · · · · · ·Plaintiff,

·7· ·vs.

·8· ·UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA


· · ·BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
·9
· · · · · · · ·Defendant.
10· _________________________________/

11

12· · · · · · ·DEPOSITION OF STEVEN SPECTER, Ph.D.

13· · · · · · · Taken on Behalf of the PLAINTIFF

14

15· · · ·DATE TAKEN:· · · · ·December 8, 2016

16· · · ·TIME:· · · · · · · ·9:06 a.m. - 4:26 p.m.

17· · · ·PLACE:· · · · · · · Univ. of South Florida


· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·12901 Bruce B. Downs
18· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Tampa, Florida 33612

19

20

21

22

23

24· · · · · · · · Stenographically Reported by:


· · · · · · · · · · · · ·Lisa D. Ortega
25· · · · · · · Registered Professional Reporter
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 2 of 182 PageID 1219

A-1022
·1· APPEARANCES:

·2

·3· Counsel for Plaintiff:

·4· · · STANLEY R. APPS, ESQUIRE


· · · · LAW OFFICE OF STANLEY R. APPS, P.A.
·5· · · 1950 Elkhorn Court
· · · · Unit 147
·6· · · San Mateo, California 94403

·7
· · Counsel for Defendant:
·8
· · · · RAY POOLE, ESQUIRE
·9· · · CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
· · · · 200 West Forsyth Street
10· · · Suite 1700
· · · · Jacksonville, Florida 32202
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
Case 8:16-cv-00637-JSM-TGW Document 29-1 Filed 02/19/17 Page 3 of 182 PageID 1220

A-1023
·1· · · · · · · · · · · I N D E X
·2
·3· Called by the PLAINTIFF
·4· WITNESS:· DR. STEVEN SPECTER
·5
·6· ·DIRECT EXAMINATION· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·5
·7· ·BY MR. APPS
·8· ·CROSS-EXAMINATION· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 145
·9· ·BY MR. POOLE
10· ·CERTIFICATE OF OATH· · · · · · · · · · · · · · 154
11· ·CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER· · · · · · · · · · · · 153
12· ·ERRATA SHEET· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·151
13· ·Witness Notification Letter· · · · · · · · · · 152
14
15· · · · · · · · · · · E X H I B I T S
16· ·Exhibit Number 1 (30(b)(6) Notice)· · · · · · ·13
17· ·Exhibit Number 2 (06-07-10 USF letter)· · · · ·27
18· ·Exhibit Number 3 (10-11-11 USF letter)· · · · ·32
19· ·Exhibit Number 4 (02-07-13 USF letter)· · · · ·36
20· ·Exhibit Number 5 (February 2012 email string)· 41
21· ·Exhibit Number 6 (August 6, 2010 Report)· · · ·44
22· ·Exhibit Number 7 (February 2012 email string)· 48
23· ·Exhibit Number 8 (02-09-12 email string)· · · ·50
24· ·Exhibit Number 9 (02-21-12 USF letter)· · · · ·53
25· ·Exhibit Number 10 (Syllabus)· · · · · · · · · ·65
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Nausheen Zainulabeddin
vs. USF BOT Appeal No.
17-12134, 17-11888, 17-12376

FRAP 25(b) through (d) (see reverse) requires that at or before the time of filing a paper,
a party must serve a copy on the other parties to the appeal or review. In addition, the
person who made service must certify that the other parties have been served, indicating
the date and manner of service, the names of the persons served, and their addresses.
You may use this form to fulfill this requirement. Please type or print legibly.

I hereby certify that on (date) August 30, 2017 ,


APPELLANT APPENDICES OF VOLUMES I TO XI
a true and correct copy of the foregoing (title of filing) ,

with first class postage prepaid, has been (check one)

G deposited in the U.S. Mail G deposited in the prison’s


internal mailing system

and properly addressed to the persons whose names and addresses are listed below:

filed with the clerk of the USCA 11th circuit


and served a paper copy to attorneys on record
Ms. Lori Mans and Mr. John Dickinson
200 West Forsyth Street
Suite 1700 Jacksonville, FL 32202-4317

Your Name (please print) Your Signature

Please complete and attach this form to the original document and to any copies you are
filing with the court, and to all copies you are serving on other parties to the appeal.
ix

You might also like