You are on page 1of 5

Case 17-38, Document 31, 02/17/2017, 1975451, Page5 of 162

Case 17-38, Document 22, 02/01/2017, 1961823, Page330 of 487


case 1:12-cv-00236-MAT-HKS Document 74 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1of5

UNITED STATES l}JS1'RICl' COURT


WESTERN DISTRICT OF Nll:W YORK

JEFFREY MAD~AN

Plaintiff; DECLARATION
VS.
1l-CV-Ol36(A)
MAKAU W. MUTUA,

Defendm1t.

MAKAU W. MUTUAdeclares "Under penalty ofperj.ury under the la>vs of the United

States of America thattlle foflowingis true and c.e-r@t in a;;lcordance with 28 U.S.C. §1746:

1. I am. tlie Defendant i:n this action. lam currently employed by the State University

nf New York at Buffalo Law School (the "Law School") as a SUN\:' Distinguished Pmfessm and

Floyd H. & Hilda L Hurst Faculty Scholar. Fwn1 D~.e:mber 2007 to May 2008 I was <he iatt.•rim

Dean of the Law School. tn May 2.00R I was appuinted D0lil.1 of the Law School and held that

position until Decembt."t' 2614, when l steppt.'C! down,

2. I make thJs. Dedaratiort in. ~)pposition to Plaintiff's mohmi fot Rule l ! sanctio11s

against me and 1:ny counsel, David Sleight. Docket No. 70.

the best of my recol1ectfoti at both Plaintiff's PERB. hearing and at :my deposition in this case. I

have never wavered from that position,

4. Plaintiff's Rule l l motion relies heavily on foi·met Defemlant Charles l°:wing' s

motion to sever and exhibits ther¢to (,Docket No. 59} to support their argmnent thai: f

intentionally testified falsely at Piaintif:t~s PER'.B hearing and at my deposition in this i::ase:. Thus,

00003JJ
Case 17-38, Document 31, 02/17/2017, 1975451, Page6 of 162

17-38, Document 22, 02/01/2017, 1961823, Page331 of 487


case 1:12-cv-00236-MAT-HKS Document 74 Filed 06/26/15 Page 2 of 5

It is importa:nt that the Court tmderstand the genesis of that motion and the nature of the co11t1ict

it embodies.

5. There are .!ongstandin.g 1ntt."rneeine conflicts at the Law School amongst members

of the faculty and administration. Many of these conflicts go back decades, and predate my

empfoyment at the Law Sd100L Plaintiffhas t--ynically sought to exploit these conflicts for gain

in this litigation. Among other things, he has used the internet as his pulpit, sending e-mails to

the en.rite Law School factiJt:y ahd admfoistratfon ol'l an almost daily basis atte1nptl:ng to win

sympathy frir his position in this case anrl cuny favor with those that opposed my de~ship or my

administration of the Law School. Many ofthe en'iails contain il:rfl:rt111tdfon that Piaintiffw<>uld

only have obtained from, Law Sd100Lf:aootty or staff. hfost oftbe emails are abusive, ci:ude, arid

1h.reatening to me. Many of the l'tnails h~ve been copied to renior officials at the University at

Buffalo. Plaintiff has also widely po:sted what I regard as defamaforymaterial abotitme in

conneetion with this Htigatim1 on the Web. The _purpose of such posts O'n the Web appears to he

to su!Jyand damage my ptofoss.fonal reputation.

6. At the hegi:i'.ming of this Htigatipn, Mr. Ewing wid l were defending this. case

together pursuant to a j(Jint de:fbnse agreement Mr. Ewing was well awa:re at that time that

Plaintiff was dai:ming that in April 2010 I had testified falsely at the PERB hearing about what

transpired at the Aprll 28, 2006 meeting oft.he PttmWtirm and Tenure Conunittre. See..e..g.,

copie!:i ofe~mails attached as Eihibit "'Ac.'' The fu.culty men1hers who'i!e tei;timony and

declarations Defendant Ewing used to su1~rt his motion were like\v:ise awate of Plain.tiff's

claims. See.. e.g.• letters attached as Exhibit "B." M'r. Ewing was· al:so weil aware that f had

testifo.,"d conslstetitly at my depositi<>n in this action in Dec.einbe.r 2013. Yet, Mr. E:wing's

;."oncem with being tainted by his association 'with me in this action did not prompt him to move
Case 17-38, Document 31, 02/17/2017, 1975451, Page7 of 162

487
case 1:12-cv-00236-MAT-HKS Document 74 Flied 06/26/15 Page 3 of 5

sever until over tv110 years atler

this actimL Nor did Mr. had

to

and then nrnve to sever.

r wou[d like to
Viee Dean fbr Academic him.

the Derm who can also remove them. On.

action because he would take certain cleletednus

told me that l had !;itci to reniove him as Vice Dean and thereafter sent a bitter

to rhe entire Law Schoo.!

Tlm.."C of the other members who "'''n'""·"'affidavitsin support of Mr.

motion Rebeecca Isabel Marcus and Mather - also have axes offhefr

own to I removed Ms. Mather as Dir¢(';tor ofthe Center for Law and in 2D08

eornmltative review of the The review was

of the Promotion and

Center for LHw and in 20! l because

vvoukl
Case 17-38, Document 31, 02/17/2017, 1975451, Page8 of 162

487
case 1:12-cv-00236-MAT-HKS Document 74 Filed 06/26/15 Page 4 of 5

of !he Law School.

Some of the other members who cithcr suhn1iHt>.tl affidavits whose

of his n:ioticn to sever Di;iame

every initiative my

adrninistration introduced while I was Dean and

the Law SdiooL

ki10w11 that

have both times '1'i1hout

JO,

me that rm withdrew frbm defenses agreement The

he t11ed his mf1tion to seV\,'L

lL On or about Mt

IJ<1ull'rt111er1t r;,nr1n1ev Grievance Committee ""'"14-"¥.

testified in the?ERB rn this case . The


m.embcrs were n:wst of the same <nr•n<'1rt?,,-.! Mc motion to i:;ever

member-

Rohen Steinfeld did was a '""'!':-''"'"'"' fkn::e


as Dean,

20 I 4, A copy

Grievance Cmnm:ittee has no! issued ae,;:rs:ton on Mr,

dismissal of M.r,
Case 17-38, Document 31, 02/17/2017, 1975451, Page9 of 162

Case 17-38, Document 22, 02/01/2017, 1961823, Page334 487


Case 1:12-cv-00236-MAT-HKS Document 74 Filed 06/26/15 Page 5 of 5

action with preju.clke artd with-0ut t~$ or Ct'>Sts, Dock~ No. 64.
Dated: June 26, 2015
Rome, Italy

0000 33 '1