Doe v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.
238 Cal. Rptr. 3d 843
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- John Doe, a UCSB student, was accused of sexually assaulting Jane Roe during a party; campus Title IX investigation spanned ~10 months and led to formal charges under UCSB Student Conduct Code.
- UCSB placed John on interim suspension, later convened a two-member Sexual/Interpersonal Violence Conduct Committee; committee hearing occurred Aug 16, 2016.
- Committee considered a two-page excerpt of the SART (Sexual Assault Response Team) report based on a detective’s email quoting a phrase about "bruising/laceration noted in the anal area," but the full SART report was not produced to John or the committee.
- Jane’s use of the antidepressant Viibryd (information disclosed to John the night before the hearing) was relevant to John’s defense; the committee refused John’s attempts to introduce testimony about Viibryd’s effects.
- Committee credited Jane, discredited John (also rejecting polygraph evidence), recommended an eight-quarter suspension; UCSB affirmed the sanction.
- John petitioned for writ of administrative mandate; superior court denied relief. The Court of Appeal reversed, finding the hearing was not fair and remanding with directions to grant the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of partial SART report without producing full report | Denial of due process — could not inspect or meaningfully cross-examine the SART findings | Detective testimony about report was permissible; report was confidential/criminally sensitive | Reversed — withholding the full SART report and relying on a quoted phrase denied a fair hearing; error was prejudicial |
| Exclusion of evidence about Viibryd (medication) and its interaction with alcohol | Viibryd disclosure was untimely; exclusion prevented him from presenting a plausible alternative explanation for complainant’s behavior | University said no formal discovery/right to expert testimony through lay witness; claimant’s medical details were private | Reversed cumulatively — exclusion was prejudicial given late disclosure and the committee’s bar on informal proof of side effects |
| Unequal application of evidentiary procedure and advisor/counsel participation | Committee allowed university counsel to actively object and shape procedure while restricting student’s advisor and evidence | University relied on its Student Conduct Code limits on adviser participation and informal procedure | Reversed — selective application of rules and permitting university counsel to act beyond student-advisor role undermined fairness |
| Sufficiency of evidence / substantial evidence review | Challenged findings as unsupported given evidentiary failures and withheld report | University asserted findings supported by total record including SART excerpt and witness testimony | Court did not reach merits on sufficiency after finding prejudicial procedural defects; reversal required for fair rehearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Regents of University of California, 5 Cal.App.5th 1055 (discussing fairness standards in university disciplinary proceedings)
- Doe v. University of Southern California, 246 Cal.App.4th 221 (administrative fairness; limits on relying on undisclosed evidence)
- Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Dept. of Social Services, 223 Cal.App.4th 72 (fair administrative hearing requirement)
- Goldberg v. Regents of University of California, 248 Cal.App.2d 867 (due process in student discipline; notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (students’ right to notice and hearing in disciplinary contexts)
- Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation v. State Personnel Bd., 238 Cal.App.4th 710 (standards of review for writ of mandate under § 1094.5)
- People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (rule of completeness; Evidence Code § 356 purpose)
- Doe v. Claremont McKenna College, 25 Cal.App.5th 1055 (when credibility of complaining witness is decisive, accused must be allowed meaningful cross-examination)