CJ joins DTH, Charlotte Ledger to unseal part of UNC’s Jacob Doe deal

Carolina Journal is joining the Daily Tar Heel and Charlotte Ledger to ask a federal judge to unseal part of a recent lawsuit settlement between the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a former student.

The student identified as Jacob Doe accused the university of botching a sexual assault investigation that led to his expulsion in 2023. US Chief District Judge Martin Reidinger signed an order in May accepting a settlement between Doe and the university.

Reidinger sealed settlement details to protect the identity of Doe and four female students identified as Jane Roe 1-4.

The three media outlets filed court documents Thursday asking Reidinger to allow them to intervene in the case.

They would intervene “for the limited purpose of asserting and protecting their and the public’s presumptive right of access to judicial documents and proceedings as conferred by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article I, § 14 of the North Carolina Constitution, as well as their right of access to public records of settlements made by or on behalf of public agencies as conferred by N.C. GEN. STAT. § 132-1.3,” according to one filing.

“[I]n the public interest and pursuant to N.C. GEN. STAT. § 132-1.3, the Court should partially unseal or otherwise modify the Settlement Agreement entered into by the parties in order to disclose the settlement terms agreed to by the Defendant public entities,” the media outlets argued.

The media outlets are asking Reidinger to “disclose the terms and conditions to which UNC agreed in order to resolve the Plaintiff’s claims,” according to the court filing. “Movants neither seek to modify this Court’s orders that have allowed the Plaintiff to pursue his claims under the pseudonym ‘Jacob Doe,’ nor to learn the identities of his accusers, who are referred to as ‘Roes 1-4.’”

State law “prohibits every ‘agency of North Carolina government’ from approving, accepting, or entering into a confidential settlement agreement in any suit or other legal proceeding against it and provides that all settlement documents in such cases are public records,” the media outlets’ lawyers wrote.

“The Consent Decree is not – nor could it be – grounded in any privacy, reputational, or other interest asserted by UNC,” the court filing asserted. “Accordingly, the Court should modify the Consent Decree and partially unseal the Settlement Agreement to the extent required to disclose the terms and conditions that were accepted or agreed to by or on behalf of UNC.”

Doe “does not oppose” the media outlets’ intervention in the case, but the university defendants oppose intervention, according to the court filing. Both Doe and UNC “oppose modification of the consent decree to partially unseal the Settlement Agreement to disclose the terms and conditions to which UNC agreed in connection with the settlement of Plaintiff’s claims.”

A separate memorandum Thursday explained the media outlets’ interest in obtaining the requested settlement information.

“[T]he North Carolina Public Records Law prohibits UNC from approving or agreeing to a confidential, sealed settlement; moreover, unlike the Plaintiff and his accusers, UNC cannot assert any privacy or reputational interest in support of the sealing,” the media lawyers wrote. “Both the claims asserted by the Plaintiff in this proceeding, and its sealed settlement, raise important legal and public policy issues with respect to UNC’s practice of confidentially investigating and adjudicating allegations of sexual assault and other serious sexual misconduct lodged by and against UNC students.”

The media outlets “urge this Court to shed public light on these issues by allowing Movants’ Motions to intervene and to modify its sealing orders,” the memorandum added.

Reidinger’s May 29 order explained his reasons for sealing the settlement.

“THE COURT FINDS under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 132-1.3 that the presumption of openness to the Settlement Agreement is overcome by the overriding privacy and reputational interests of Plaintiff and Roes 1-4, and that this overriding interest cannot be protected by any measure short of sealing the Settlement Agreement,” Reidinger wrote.

Reidinger determined that “entry of this Consent Decree is just and reasonable with respect to all Parties and is in the interests of justice.”

The case “implicates significant reputational and privacy interests of Plaintiff and Roes 1-4, the disclosure of which would cause irreparable harm to those interests,” Reidinger wrote. “The Settlement Agreement sets forth terms and conditions mutually agreed to by the Parties that, if disclosed, are reasonably likely to lead to the identification of Plaintiff and Roes 1-4, potentially causing emotional damage to the Plaintiff.”

“Thus, under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 132-1.3, the Settlement Agreement pertains to confidential matters affecting the reputational and privacy interests of the Plaintiff and Roes 1-4, the disclosure of which would cause irreparable harm to those interests,” the judge added.

Reidinger maintained jurisdiction of the case “for purposes of enforcing the Settlement Agreement and this Consent Decree.”

The judge had issued an order in March setting the case for a May trial. Doe could argue that UNC officials violated his due process rights, that the university failed to follow Title IX requirements, and that officials engaged in negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Reidinger’s order dropped a fourth claim. Doe had argued that UNC officials illegally led him to lose the prestigious Morehead-Cain scholarship.

“The Plaintiff, however, has alleged only that ‘UNC intentionally induced the Morehead-Cain Foundation to cease carrying out the contract with Plaintiff,’ rather than any of the Employee Defendants,” Reidinger wrote. “The Plaintiff has not forecast any evidence that the asserted interference with the Plaintiff’s contract with MCF resulted from conduct by any of the Employee Defendants. Accordingly, based on this forecast of evidence, no reasonable jury could find that the Employee Defendants tortiously interfered with the Plaintiff’s contract with MCF. The Court will therefore grant summary judgment in favor of the Employee Defendants on this claim.”

The UNC defendants had asked Reidinger to grant them summary judgment on the other claims as well. “Regarding the Plaintiff’s NIED, Title IX, and due process claims, the forecasts of evidence present genuine issues of disputed material fact,” Reidinger wrote. “Accordingly, the Court will deny summary judgment on these three claims and set them for trial.”

In a separate order, Reidinger allowed both Doe and UNC defendants to present evidence from competing Title IX experts. The judge rejected two experts Doe put forward to discuss the impact of his expulsion on his future job prospects.

The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in April 2025 that Doe could not seek monetary damages in his lawsuit against the school. He could seek to be reinstated and to have his record cleared.

Doe challenged the way UNC addressed sexual assault charges against him in 2021.

“Jacob Doe, a student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, was found responsible for two allegations of sexual misconduct against female classmates,” Judge Harvie Wilkinson wrote for a unanimous 4th Circuit panel. “As a result, Doe lost his scholarship and was permanently expelled from the entire University of North Carolina system.”

“Doe sued the university and several employees for deprivations of Fourteenth Amendment due process, violations of his rights under Title IX, and a handful of state law claims. The district court largely denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss, allowing Doe’s federal claims and most of his state law claims to advance,” Wilkinson wrote.

“We reverse in part, affirm in part, and dismiss in part,” the judge explained. “Because we hold that the district court erred in rejecting the defendants’ assertions of sovereign and qualified immunity, we reverse the judgment below to the extent it permitted Doe to pursue money damages. But we think the district court properly allowed Doe to seek prospective injunctive relief for the due process violations he alleges.”

Four female students — each identified as Jane Roe — lodged complaints against Doe. Hearings and appeals extended through February 2023, when the university’s Board of Trustees affirmed a decision to expel Doe.

He sued in federal court. “The upshot of Doe’s complaint is that the university and its employees denied him fair and adequate disciplinary proceedings, leading to erroneous outcomes in the Roe 1 and Roe 4 matters and causing serious damage to his education, reputation, and career prospects,” Wilkinson wrote.

“Doe asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of Fourteenth Amendment due process, a claim under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 for an erroneous disciplinary outcome, and a series of claims under North Carolina law,” the appellate decision continued. “He sought compensatory and punitive damages and an injunction vacating the disciplinary findings in the Roe 1 and Roe 4 matters, expunging his disciplinary record, and readmitting him to UNC-CH.”

Redinger denied UNC officials’ motion to dismiss the case and allowed most of Doe’s claims to move forward.

“We think the district court erred in denying the UNC institutions’ motion to dismiss Doe’s claims against them on sovereign immunity grounds, and neither of Doe’s arguments persuades us to the contrary,” Wilkinson wrote.

That decision precluded Doe from seeking monetary damages. “Because the UNC institutions are entitled to state sovereign immunity, the employee defendants sued in their official capacities are ‘protected from a damages action by the same immunity,’” Wilkinson explained. “But Doe seeks more than just money damages for the due process deprivations he alleges. He also requests three forms of injunctive relief: ‘(i) a vacating of the disciplinary findings and decisions; (ii) expungement of his academic record; and (iii) reinstatement as a student in good standing.’”

“We hold that Doe has alleged a liberty interest sufficient to trigger procedural due process protections,” Wilkinson wrote. “A plaintiff asserting a liberty interest in his reputation must show (1) a stigmatizing statement, (2) some type of dissemination, and (3) some other government action that ‘alters or extinguishes one of his legal rights.’”

“Given the pejorative nature of the alleged misconduct and the severity of the actual sanction imposed, we hold that a sufficient liberty interest has been alleged,” the opinion added.

“We think as well that an erroneous university record of a student’s permanent expulsion for sexual misconduct inflicts an ongoing injury for which the student can seek equitable relief,” Wilkinson wrote.

Judges Steven Agee and Henry Floyd joined Wilkinson’s opinion.

“CJ joins DTH, Charlotte Ledger to unseal part of UNC’s Jacob Doe deal” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.