Pingree v. University of Utah et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
RITA FLORIAN PINGREE,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF UTAH and CAROLINE
MILNE,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
RECONSIDER
Case No. 2:20-cv-00724-JNP-CMR
Chief District Judge Jill N. Parrish
Before the court is Plaintiff’s motion for the court to reconsider its order that Plaintiff must
produce unredacted copies of her fellowship offers to Defendants. After Plaintiff filed her motion
to reconsider, the court, as a temporary measure, ordered Plaintiff to produce the unredacted offers
to defense counsel as attorney and expert eye’s only. Defendants have now submitted a response
to the motion to reconsider. For the following reasons, the court DENIES the motion to reconsider.
Plaintiff 	has 	presented 	no 	argument 	that 	there 	has 	been 	a 	significant 	change 	in
circumstances that warrants the court’s reconsideration. Instead, she only argues Plaintiff’s counsel
did not “make clear during the hearing” that the information in the documents is of a privileged
nature. ECF No. 259 at 1. “Specifically, Dr. Pingree provided the unredacted offers to her counsel,
April Hollingsworth, and only Ms. Hollingsworth, under the condition that they not be shared with
anyone else.” Id. at 1–2.
As an initial matter, Plaintiff and her counsel had the opportunity both through briefing and
at oral argument to raise any and all arguments relevant to this issue. Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure
to do so does not warrant reconsideration. But even considering these new arguments, Plaintiff’s
motion still fails. Plaintiff had an obligation to produce the information in these documents to the
Case 2:20-cv-00724-JNP Document 269 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 3

2
opposing party but failed to do so in a timely manner. And the fact that Plaintiff then provided
these documents to her counsel does not create a privilege that she can employ to avoid disclosure.
Smith v. Texaco, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 354, 357 (E.D. Texas 1999) (stating “materials that would be
discoverable in possession of party do not become immune from discovery by being shared with
attorney”). While Plaintiff argues the experts do not need the information in these documents
relating to location, Defendants are entitled to receive the information they normally would receive
when developing their trial strategy and arguments, especially given they are now doing so in an
extremely contracted timeline due to Plaintiff’s undue delay. Simply put, Plaintiff is not the arbiter
of what is relevant and what the parties may consider.
Plaintiff also argues that the production of these documents would cause “manifest
injustice.” This argument primarily characterizes Plaintiff’s fear of Defendant Milne misusing
these documents to further retaliate as being so great that Plaintiff would rather risk sanctions by
the court than compliance with its orders. It also argues that the court’s order creates a “conflict”
between Plaintiff and her counsel that might result in Plaintiff losing her lead attorney.
To be clear, neither of these arguments reach anywhere near the level of manifest injustice
required for the court to reconsider its order. The documents are subject to both the court’s standard
protective order and an additional order requiring Defendants to not share these documents with
any third parties. ECF No. 225. Plaintiff’s counsel, having satisfied her responsibility to move for
the court to reconsider, may now comply with the order without fear of breaching her professional
responsibility duties. See Comment 15 to Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Any
intentional disobedience to the court’s binding orders does not create manifest injustice; instead,
it warrants sanctions.
Case 2:20-cv-00724-JNP Document 269 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 3

3
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the above reasons, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 259, and orders that
Plaintiff’s counsel produce to Defendants unredacted copies of her fellowship offers by 5:00 p.m.
on February 27, 2026. The court further orders that the offers are subject to the Protective Order
in this case and neither the offers or their contents may be disclosed by Defendants to any third
parties.
DATED February 27, 2026.
BY THE COURT
______________________________
Jill N. Parrish
United States Chief District Judge
Case 2:20-cv-00724-JNP Document 269 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 3