Case 3:16-cv-30184-MGM Document 124-15 Filed 09/30/18 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

)
JOHN DOE, )
)
Plaintifi )
) NO. 3: l6-CV-30184-MAP
V )
)
WILLIAMS COLLEGE, )
)
Defendant. )
)

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND REQUEST

FOR ADMISSIONS

9. Please state the n?m9, address, job title, and employer of the person(s) answering these
Requests for admission.

Response: These responses are verified on behalf of the College by Marlene Sandstrom,

Dean of the College.

10. Williams College provides the respondent in its investigation and adjudication of sexual
misconduct complaints an opportunity to be heard in face-to-face mèetings with an investigator
whose responsibilities do not include providing opinions or assessing the respondent,s
credibility.

Response: Admitted.

11. At V/illiams College, the hearing panel in an adjudication of sexual misconduct complaint bases
its decision(s) as to whether the respondent violated the Code of Conduct on an investigator,s
report that is compiled without any opinion or credibility assessment.

Response: Denied that the hearing panel bases its decision solely on the investigator,s

report, as the panel also receives and considers responses to the report from the

complainant and the respondent. Admitted that the investigator's report does not express

any opinion or assessment about the credibility of the parties or the other witnesses, but
 Case 3:16-cv-30184-MGM Document 124-15 Filed 09/30/18 Page 2 of 5

denied that the panel makes its decision without forming any opinion or makin g any
assessment about credibility.

12. Williams College's provision of a "face-to-face hearing" with the hearing panel in an
adjudication of sexual misconduct complaint at the sanction phase does noì involve any
assessment of the respondent's credibility regarding the facts of the case.

Response: Admitted that the sanction phase does not involve an assessment..regarding

the facts of the case," as that occurs during the initial, responsibility phase of the panel,s

work and not at the sanction phase. Denied that the panel's adjudication during the

initial, responsibility phase does not involve any assessment of the respondent's

credibility regarding the facts of the case, as in fact the panel makes credibility

assessments in various ways, including for example by assessing the inherent credibility

of the respondent's version of events, the credibility of that account relative to internal

consistencies or inconsistencies, the credibility of that account relative to the accounts of

the complainant or other witnesses, the credibility of that account relative to the

respondent's motive to lie not to be truthful or forthcoming, and so on.

13. Wjlliams College provides an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant's witnesses by way
of suggesting questions to the investigator to be asked of others during the interviewing
stage/step of the process. See Investigation and Adjudication Processþr Sentøl Assailt, Sexual
Exploitatíon, stølking, Dating, and Domestic violence Section I(d).

Response: Admitted.

14. Williams College does not provide the respondent an opportunity to cross-examine the
complainant's witnesses by way of suggesting questions to the investigator to be asked of others
because the complainant's witnesses are not revealed to the respondent until the stage/step during
which the respondent receives the report. See Investigation and Adjudication proceisþr Sexual
Assault, Sexual Exploitation, Stalking, Dating, ønd Domestic Violence Section I(e).

Response: Denied, as nothing prevents a respondent asking for a list of the

complainant's witnesses prior to the investigator's submission of her report and nothing

prevents a respondent from suggesting additional questions to be asked of those witnesses

 Case 3:16-cv-30184-MGM Document 124-15 Filed 09/30/18 Page 3 of 5

in his response to the Investigation Report, as Dean Sandstrom specifically invited Doe to

do in a September 14,2016 email to him, produced as wMS07594.

15. At Williams College, the stage/step during which the respondent receives the report does not
include a provision for the respondent to suggest questions to the investigator to be asked of
others. See1d.

Response: Admitted that the College's Investigation and Adjudication process does not

include an explicit provision for either the complainant or the respondent to suggest

questions to the investigator to be asked of others after the investigator submits the

report, but denied that anlhing about the process precludes or discourages a party from

suggesting such questions and in fact aparty has ample opportunity to do so during his or

her interview(s) with the investigator or in communications outside of those interviews

16. Williams College did not provide John Doe an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant,s
witnesses by way of suggesting questions to the investigator to be asked of others because the
identities of complainant's witnesses were not revealed to the respondent until the stage/step
during which John received the report.

Response: Denied, as nothing prevented Doe from asking for a list of the complainant's

witnesses prior to the investigator's submission of her report and nothing prevented him

from suggesting additional questions to be asked of those witnesses in his response to the

Investigation Report.

WILLIAMS COLLEGE,

See attached Verification

 Case 3:16-cv-30184-MGM Document 124-15 Filed 09/30/18 Page 4 of 5

As to Objections,

J
com
ElizabethH. Kelly (BBO No.672277)
liz.kelly @lo ckel ord. com
LOCKE LORD LLP
lll HuntingtonAvenue
Boston, MA02l99
617.230.0100

vat"@.-.- 2018

Certificate of Service

I certify that I caused the foregoing docu¡nent to be served upon counsel

of record for the plaintiff by email on}/rarctd-2O|g.

f
J
 Case 3:16-cv-30184-MGM Document 124-15 Filed 09/30/18 Page 5 of 5

VERIFICATION
I verify the foregoing Responses on behalf of 1ù/illiams-college,
based in part upon my
personal knowledge and in part upon information
provided and assem-bled by others. As to any
information he¡ein that i.s not within my pe1¡onal knowledge,
i am informed that it is true and it
is true to the best of my information arrdïelief.

subscribed and sworn to under the pains and penalties

March,2018.
of perjury tu* ? .l day of

Marlene
Dean of the College
4M68137320.2