Case: 1:14-cv-00895 Document #: 29 Filed: 01/06/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:239

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
)
Yoona Ha,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
Case No. 1:14-CV-00895
)
v.
)
)
Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber
Northwestern University,
)
)
Magistrate Judge Daniel G. Martin
Defendant.
)

PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT MOTION TO ALTER OR

AMEND JUDGMENT, AND MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE
JUDGMENT (Doc # 27) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR RELIEF
FROM FINAL JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)

As set forth below, in the time since Plaintiff filed her Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment and Motion for Relief from Judgment filed on December 11, 2014
(Doc #27), she has discovered additional new evidence that was previously
unavailable and which is material to her claim.
Accordingly, Plaintiff Yoona Ha, by and through her counsel, OConnor |
OConnor, P.C., hereby respectfully moves to supplement her Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment and Motion for Relief from Judgment filed on December 11, 2014
(Doc #27), or, in the alternative, submits this Motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) for
Relief from Final Judgment from the Courts Order Granting Defendants Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings entered on November 13, 2014.
Procedural and Factual History
1. On November 13, 2014, the Court granted Defendants Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings by mail notification without oral argument (Doc #s 24-26).

Case: 1:14-cv-00895 Document #: 29 Filed: 01/06/15 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:240

2. On December 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment and
a Motion for Relief from Judgment (Doc # 27, the Motion) pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e) and 60 (Doc # 27) based on newly discovered evidence;
Northwesterns misrepresentation; and factual and legal misunderstanding
contained in the Order.
3. On or about December 13, 2014, after Plaintiff filed the Motion, Dr. Heidi
Lockwood, a tenured Associate Professor of Philosophy at Southern Connecticut
State University in New Haven, CT, contacted Plaintiffs attorneys.
4. Dr. Lockwood stated that she had been speaking with professors and students in the
philosophy field who had concerns over Ludlows sexual misconduct and inappropriate
behavior toward female students, and she may have information that was helpful to
Plaintiffs case.
5. Dr. Lockwood and Plaintiffs attorneys set up a teleconference, and spoke at length on
December 22, 2014.Dr. Lockwood continues to communicate with Plaintiffs attorneys
after the initial teleconference.
6. Dr. Lockwoods affidavit is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as EXHIBIT
A.
Standard of Review
7. In order to prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion, a plaintiff must clearly establish that there
has been a manifest error of law or fact, or that newly discovered evidence precludes
entry of judgment. Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433 F.3d 542, 546 (7th
Cir.2006); see also Seng-Tiong Ho v. Taflove, 648 F.3d 489 at 505 (7th Cir. 2011).

Case: 1:14-cv-00895 Document #: 29 Filed: 01/06/15 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:241

8. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 (b) (2) allows a party relief from a final judgment
permissible for a variety of reasons including mistake, excusable neglect, newly
discovered evidence, fraud, misrepresentation, misconduct or any other reason that
justifies relief. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b); See also Harrington v. City of Chicago, 433
F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006).
Newly Discovered Facts
9. During the teleconference on December 22, 2014, Dr. Lockwood provided additional
material information which was not available to Plaintiff previously, inter alia:
Ludlows history of detailed sexual misconduct toward female students; wide-spread
knowledge and concerns in the philosophy field over this type of conduct by Ludlow
and Northwestern; and Northwesterns admission to its failure to look into the pattern
of such misconduct by Ludlow during the pre-hiring procedure even though it had
taken note of many warning signs. EXHIBIT A, paragraphs 3,5-7, and 10-11.
10. Lockwood also learned that there had been concerns and some discussion over
Ludlows behavior and habit of dating young female students at Northwestern, but
Northwestern failed to take any actions or look into the matter more closely. Id.
paragraphs 5-7, 11, 14-15, and 18-21.
11. Specifically, Sandy Goldberg, the chairman of the Department of Philosophy at
Northwestern, even declined to support the alleged sexual assault victim of Ludlow,
explaining that the University instructed the faculty not to talk about the issue. Id.,
paragraph 19.
12. In addition, on January 4, 2015, just two days ago, Dr. Lockwood received new
information from a philosophy graduate student (Philosopher X) at Northwestern that

Case: 1:14-cv-00895 Document #: 29 Filed: 01/06/15 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:242

a group of female graduate students brought a hostile environment complaint to the

department in 2010. The concerns of the students included both sexual harassment and
faculty sexual misconduct in particular the exploitation of power asymmetries to
proposition graduate students. Id. paragraphs 18-21.
13. Philosopher X explained that Ludlow was the worst with respect to verbal sexual
harassment, and that it was a widely-known fact that Ludlow frequently attended strip
clubs with male graduate students. Id.
14. Dr. Lockwood was informed by Philosopher X that the facultys sexually harassing
conduct had not been changed even after the complaint was lodged with the
Department and the Department interviewed students. Id.
15. According to Philosopher X, a lot of people, including Philosopher X, were
interviewed after the 2010 complaint was brought to the Department of Philosophy.
However, Philosopher X said, there was no change in Ludlows pursuit of both
undergraduate and graduate students, and, according to Philosopher X, most of the
faculty members were afraid to say anything about the issue, at least until just recently.
Id.
16. Northwestern has apparently adopted the practice of instructing its professors to say
nothing and to take no action about these types of concerns which continues
presently/near-presently: more recently Sandy Goldberg declined to sign an open letter
of support written and distributed to the philosophical community by five senior
philosophers from other universities regarding the practical and ethical concerns raised
by Ludlow suing a former student who had (subsequent to Plaintiff) been a victim of

Case: 1:14-cv-00895 Document #: 29 Filed: 01/06/15 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:243

his sexual harassment and had brought a complaint against him 1. The letter was signed
and supported by philosophers from more than 30 different universities.
17. Dr. Goldberg explained to Dr. Kvanvig, who invited him to sign, that he could not
express support for the graduate students because Northwestern University has
instructed the faculty not to talk about the issue. Around the same time period, there
was also a remarkable failure of the faculty (aside from Dr. Lackey and her husband
Dr. Baron Reed) to take a stance on the issue or provide support for the graduate
students, even by simply quietly "liking" their links to the letter of support on social
media.
18. Conversations with individuals in the department over the past couple of months have
revealed that the Department of Philosophy at Northwestern University is failing to
respond to the problem of faculty sexual misconduct and failing to provide support for
the graduate student complainant and her faculty mentor by failing to talk about the
problem, whether out of fear of being sued by Ludlow, or fear of irritating the
administration by publicly showing support for the complainants and/or Dr. Jennifer
Lackey. EXHIBIT A, paragraph 21.

Argument
I. The Newly-Discovered Evidence Further Establishes Northwesterns Deliberate
Indifference And Systemic Disregard Of Sex Discrimination and Harassment By The
Faculty, And Compels Amendment And Alteration Of The Previous Judgment, Or In
The Alternative, Relief From Judgment .

The student victim in mentioned here is not the Plaintiff in this case, but another female student who had
complained that Ludlow sexually harassed her, and was subsequently sued by Ludlow. Though it should
be noted that Ludlow has sued the Plaintiff in this case, a victim of his sexual harassment, as well.

Case: 1:14-cv-00895 Document #: 29 Filed: 01/06/15 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:244

19. In addition to the new evidence Plaintiff put out in her Motion filed on December 11,
2014, the further new information obtained by Plaintiff on December 13 and afterward
clearly establishes that Northwestern acted with deliberate indifference in handling
sexual harassment or misconduct complaints lodged against Ludlow.
20. Specifically, the newly-discovered evidence clearly establishes that Northwestern was
informed of Ludlows repeated pattern of sexual misconduct from various sources, but
failed to properly investigate the concerns and complaints on numerous occasions or to
take any precautionary measures to protect its students.
21. Northwestern had a chance to look into the concerns about Ludlow in the pre-hiring
process. Ludlow showed up with a young girlfriend (who had been one of his
undergraduate students) to his job interview and there had been concerns raised about
the fact that Ludlow was dating his former student. Even though there was an email
exchange among the faculty about whether to investigate to see whether dating and/or
sexual misconduct was an issue, Northwestern deliberately chose not to investigate
further and hired Ludlow as a professor.
22. Even Northwesterns own employee has admitted that Northwestern should have
looked into the matter more during the pre-hiring process. EXHIBIT A, paragraph 11.
23. Northwestern again failed to take any action against Ludlow even after several female
students at the Department of Philosophy lodged a hostile environment complaint
against the professors, including Ludlow. Ludlow continued to teach at Northwestern
and his behavior, according to many witnesses, never changed.
24. Northwesterns repeated indifference to, and disregard for, the numerous complaints
and concerns raised against Ludlow and the faculty paved the way for Plaintiff (as well

Case: 1:14-cv-00895 Document #: 29 Filed: 01/06/15 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:245

as the other graduate student after her) to subsequently be subjected to sexual assault by
Ludlow.
25. Continuing in that trend, Northwestern has seemingly employed the strategy to instruct
its faculty to say nothing, nor take action, regarding the concerns of harassment and
discrimination of its students which are brought to its attention.
26. Accordingly, as extensively discussed in her Motion filed on December 11, 2014, this
newly-discovered evidence makes the instant case almost identical to Williams v.
Board of Regents of Univ. System of Georgia, 466 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2007); except
that in this case Northwesterns conduct was even more egregious because
Northwestern had many more occasions to avoid imperiling its female students by
exposing them to Ludlow, or to take some form of precautionary measures, than the
University in Williams.
27. These newly-discovered facts will allow Plaintiff to fully allege that Northwestern was
on notice of Ludlows repeated pattern of sexual misconduct on numerous occasions
prior to the sexual assault on Plaintiff, and that Northwestern acted with extreme
deliberate indifference by, inter alia, failing to take action to address the risk posed to
its female students by installing Ludlow into a position of power with respect to those
students, and again in failing to take action once new complaints had surfaced from
Northwesterns own student body about sexual harassment and hostile environment
with respect to Ludlow and the philosophy department.
28. Moreover, this new information provides Plaintiff with numerous additional sources of
evidence of her claims- such as newly identified witnesses, documentary evidence, and

Case: 1:14-cv-00895 Document #: 29 Filed: 01/06/15 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:246

the location and content of that new documentary evidence- that Plaintiff can fully
bring to light only through the discovery process.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Yoona Ha respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 59(e), 60(b)(2), and all other applicable Rules, to:
a. Alter, amend, or vacate the Judgment entered on November 13, 2014;
b. Deny Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings;
c. Grant Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15 (a)(2); and
d. Grant such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted by:
Yoona Ha,
By: /s/ Kevin F. OConnor
One of her attorneys

Kevin F. OConnor (ARDC #6300449)

Ryan O. Estes (ARDC #6312755)
OConnor | OConnor, P.C.
110 E. Schiller St., Ste 306
Elmhurst, IL 60126
Office 630-456-1596
Fax. 630-658-0336
kevin@oconnor-oconnor.com