Catherine Wanko v. Board of Trustees of Indiana U, 927 F.3d 966

Background

Catherine Wanko, a Cameroonian-born dental student at Indiana University (IU), failed two first-year courses (RP and STI); she remediated RP unsuccessfully and ultimately was required to repeat the first year and later dismissed after a second STI failure.
IU produced anonymized spreadsheets in discovery showing classmates’ races, genders, grades, and GPAs (students identified by numbers) rather than named student records, citing FERPA concerns.
The spreadsheets showed only one other student (Student #2, a Black female) failed both RP and STI; Student #2 remediated RP and advanced, unlike Wanko.
Wanko moved to compel production of the actual student records to identify non-Black comparators; the magistrate judge denied the motion and the district court affirmed.
Wanko sought a Rule 56(d) continuance to delay IU’s summary judgment motion until she obtained the records; the district court denied that motion and granted summary judgment to IU because Wanko could not identify a similarly situated non-Black student who received better treatment.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed: the spreadsheets were sufficient, the court did not abuse its discretion on discovery or the Rule 56(d) denial, and Wanko had no adequate comparator under Title VI.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the magistrate/district court abused discretion by denying Wanko’s motion to compel actual student records	Wanko: spreadsheets unreliable (GPA discrepancy) and insufficient to identify similarly situated non-Black comparators; actual records necessary	IU: spreadsheets provided grades/demographics; names withheld for FERPA compliance; spreadsheets reliable and sufficient	Denial affirmed — court reasonably concluded spreadsheets provided required information and were not shown unreliable
Whether the court abused discretion in denying a Rule 56(d) continuance to allow further discovery before ruling on summary judgment	Wanko: could not meaningfully oppose summary judgment without student records to identify comparators	IU: spreadsheets already contained the necessary facts; no good-faith showing that additional records were essential	Denial affirmed — Wanko failed to show she could not present facts essential to oppose summary judgment
Whether Wanko produced a similarly situated, non‑Black comparator to survive summary judgment on her Title VI discrimination claim	Wanko: two or three students failed STI and were promoted; at least one non‑Black student received better treatment	IU: only Student #2 similarly failed both courses but is Black and remediated RP; no non‑Black student was similarly situated	Summary judgment for IU affirmed — no evidence of a similarly situated non‑Black student who received better treatment; Student #2 was not similarly situated

Key Cases Cited

Brewer v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 479 F.3d 908 (7th Cir.) (plaintiff must show worse treatment than similarly situated students not in protected class)
Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676 (7th Cir.) (comparator must be directly comparable in all material respects)
Brill v. Lante Corp., 119 F.3d 1266 (7th Cir.) (district court manages discovery; reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Vallone v. CNA Fin. Corp., 375 F.3d 623 (7th Cir.) (deferential review of discovery decisions)
Helping Hand Caregivers, Ltd. v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., 900 F.3d 884 (7th Cir.) (district court may defer ruling on summary judgment for discovery matters)
United States v. All Assets & Equipment of West Side Bldg. Corp., 58 F.3d 1181 (7th Cir.) (standard for Rule 56(d) good-faith showing)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S.) (framework for procedural due process analysis)