In a four-hour hearing, lawyers on behalf of the OU Board of Regents debated representation from media outlet NonDoc in an Open Records Act lawsuit over the release of reports from law firm Jones Day containing allegations against former OU President David Boren and former Vice President of University Development Jim “Tripp” Hall.
During oral argument, Austin Vance, lawyer for the OU Board of Regents, said that should the Jones Day report be released to the public, identifying information about victims who came forward with abuse allegations could be compromised.
Tres Savage, editor-in-chief of NonDoc, filed a lawsuit against the Board of Regents in 2021 claiming OU had violated the state’s Open Records Act after his request for a copy of the Jones Day report was denied.
OU paid Jones Day $1.5 million between 2018 and 2019 to investigate two matters — alumni donorship data reported to U.S. News & World Report after it was discovered OU had provided falsified data since 1999, and sexual misconduct allegations against Boren and Hall.
Vance argued the Jones Day reports were not subject to the Open Records Act due to attorney-client privilege, personnel records exemption and a constitutional right to privacy. The reports were created in anticipation of litigation, Vance argued.
During their time for oral arguments, NonDoc lawyer Blake Johnson argued OU, as a public body, does not have attorney-client privilege since the investigation has already ended. Regarding the privacy of victims, Johnson said NonDoc attempted to ask OU to release a redacted version of the report, but the university did not entertain those discussions.
Johnson pointed to prominent Oklahoma public figures who have called for more information to be released, including Sen. James Lankford and former Gov. and OU Regent Frank Keating. In a sealed affidavit, former OU President James Gallogly also expressed wanting the report to be released, according to Johnson.
According to NonDoc lawyer Lin Weeks, Gallogly resigned because he wanted the Jones Day reports released, though Gallogly has never publicly expressed this.
Johnson labeled OU’s desire to maintain attorney-client privilege as contradictory, accusing the university of sharing excerpts of the Jones Day reports with Boren, the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation and multiple crisis prevention agencies. According to Johnson, OU has refused to submit Boren’s response to the Jones Day reports he made through his lawyer.
Johnson also mentioned Jess Eddy, an OU graduate and former teaching assistant, who alleged he received unwanted sexual advances from Boren and was groped by Hall during his time at the university. Eddy is the only person in the Jones Day reports who is currently named.
According to Johnson, Eddy said OU did not state the purpose of the Jones Day investigation and was told by investigators that they would try to keep him anonymous.
Johnson told the court the investigation was about an abuse of power so the report should be publicly available.
“The people of Oklahoma deserve to read this story,” Johnson said.
In October, OU asked Cleveland County Judge Michael Tupper to close the courtroom to the public. Tupper later denied the request, saying OU had not overcome the assumption that the press and public should be allowed to attend Friday’s oral arguments.
Tupper allowed Vance to refute the claims made by Johnson and Weeks. Vance argued there was no reason Jones Day couldn’t operate as both a Title IX investigator and legal adviser to the university.
Vance said the arguments presented by the plaintiffs were made under the wrong interpretation of the law and alleged that Gallogly’s motivation for wanting the reports released was due to a vendetta against Boren and OU.
“This is an important matter, and I've got a lot to think about,” Tupper said.
Tupper did not provide a timeline for when he would release his decision.
Following Friday’s hearing, Savage told media outside of the courtroom the public has an interest in knowing that the university is engaging in proper and ethical financing practices. Savage said he finds it concerning that OU would “cover up” investigated behavior.
“It is a story where a powerful individual who had leverage and sway and used that in undue manner in arguably a violation of university code, arguably in violation of the law, to gain sexual gratification from employees, from students, and in many cases, that behavior was known and was not addressed by the university for an extended period of time,” Savage said.
This story was edited by Ana Barboza and Anusha Fathepure. Mary Ann Livingood copy edited this story.
