BALTIMORE, MD — A federal magistrate judge has ordered Coppin State University and other state defendants to submit a confidential legal memorandum for private judicial review amid a discovery dispute in a high-profile Title IX lawsuit brought by former student Ibn Williams.
In an order issued this week in Williams v. Coppin State University, et al., Civil No. 23-2590-JRR, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland directed the defendants to turn over to the judge — under seal and for “in camera” inspection — a nine-page document titled “Attorney Legal Analysis of Title IX Claim.” The memo was written by law firm Ogletree Deakins, P.C. on May 5, 2021.
Williams, who is representing himself, filed a motion to compel the release of the memo, arguing that it is not protected by attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine because Ogletree was hired as an external investigator, not as legal counsel. The State Defendants — including Coppin State University, the University System of Maryland, the State of Maryland, and university officials Derek Carter and Juan Dixon — maintain that the memo contains privileged legal advice.
The court’s order, issued by a U.S. Magistrate Judge to whom the discovery dispute was referred, does not yet resolve whether the document must ultimately be disclosed. Instead, the judge will privately review the document to determine whether it is protected by privilege or must be produced to Williams.
The Dispute Over the Title IX “Legal Analysis”
The controversy centers on two documents prepared by Ogletree Deakins on the same day — May 5, 2021 — after Williams filed a Title IX complaint against Coppin State. One document, a factual “Investigative Summary,” was provided to Williams and formed the basis for the university’s decision to close his complaint. The other, the “Title IX Legal Analysis,” was withheld and labeled confidential.
Williams argues that Ogletree’s role was limited to conducting a factual investigation as an outside Title IX investigator, not to give legal advice. He contends that any claim of attorney-client privilege is invalid because the engagement was governed by a “Civil Rights Investigator Contract Task Order” — not a retainer for legal representation — and because Coppin adopted Ogletree’s findings as its official decision, thereby waiving any privilege over the related analysis.
“The firm was retained to investigate, not to serve as legal counsel,” Williams asserted in his filings. He also accused the university of “selectively disclosing” parts of Ogletree’s work to justify its actions while hiding potentially damaging assessments of its own liability.
The state defendants counter that Ogletree was engaged in a dual capacity — to conduct an investigation and separately to provide privileged legal advice about the university’s exposure and legal strategy. In a sworn declaration, Lisa Horne Early, Coppin’s then–Title IX Coordinator, stated that the university intentionally requested two deliverables: a public investigative summary and a confidential legal analysis. The defendants said the legal memo was created “in anticipation of litigation,” particularly because Williams’s Title IX complaint included a $50 million notice of claim against the university.
They further argue that no privilege was waived when the university adopted the factual findings, since the legal analysis was “never shared or relied upon in the administrative determination.”
The Judge’s Next Step
The court’s memorandum opinion and order indicates that both sides have submitted extensive sealed exhibits, including emails, contracts, and billing records, to support their respective positions. Finding the dispute too fact-dependent to resolve on briefing alone, the judge ordered the state defendants to produce the Title IX Legal Analysis for in camera review — meaning the judge will examine the document privately to assess whether it qualifies for protection under the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work-product doctrine.
Such judicial review is a common step when privilege is asserted over key documents in federal litigation, particularly when the nature of the document’s creation and purpose are in dispute.
If the judge concludes that the memo is purely investigative or that any privilege was waived, Coppin State may be compelled to produce it to Williams. If, however, it is deemed privileged legal advice or protected work product prepared in anticipation of litigation, the university can continue to withhold it.
Broader Context
The case stems from Williams’s allegations that Coppin State mishandled his Title IX complaint and retaliated against him, sparking ongoing litigation against the university, the state, and several officials. Earlier in the case, U.S. District Judge Julie R. Rubin partially denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, allowing certain claims to proceed.
The outcome of the court’s forthcoming in camera review could significantly affect discovery in the case, potentially revealing how Coppin’s outside counsel evaluated the university’s handling of Williams’s Title IX allegations.
Until that review is completed, the Title IX Legal Analysis remains under seal.
