Andrea Goldblum v. Univ. of Cincinnati

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)

File Name: 23a0037p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐

ANDREA GOLDBLUM,

│

Plaintiff-Appellant, │

> No. 22-3289

│

v. │

│

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI, │

Defendant-Appellee. │

┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.

No. 1:19-cv-00398—Matthew W. McFarland, District Judge.

Argued: January 26, 2023

Decided and Filed: March 10, 2023

Before: GRIFFIN, WHITE, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Joshua Adam Engel, ENGEL & MARTIN, LLC, Mason, Ohio, for Appellant.

Marissa J. Palumbo, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for

Appellee. ON BRIEF: Joshua Adam Engel, ENGEL & MARTIN, LLC, Mason, Ohio, for

Appellant. Marissa J. Palumbo, Colleen Koehler, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY

GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.

_________________

OPINION

_________________

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Citing her insubordination and other infractions, the University

of Cincinnati (“UC” or the “University”) requested that Andrea Goldblum resign as its Title IX

Coordinator. Because Goldblum believes that UC retaliated against her for engaging in activity

No. 22-3289 Goldblum v. Univ. of Cincinnati Page 2

protected under Title IX, she sued for unlawful retaliation. The district court granted summary

judgment for UC and denied Goldblum’s motions for additional discovery. We affirm.

I.

In January 2019, UC’s College of Arts and Sciences awarded “triumph cords” to

graduating students who had overcome some form of adversity. R. 73-1, Pg. ID 3252. The

College awarded these cords based on nominations by faculty and staff—it didn’t vet the

nominees. As a result, the College unintentionally awarded a cord to a convicted sex offender

who had also been suspended for sexual misconduct at one university and investigated for the

same at another. When members of the UC community discovered this student’s criminal

record, they became upset, “venting and sharing their frustrations” on social media. R. 55, Pg.

ID 1212.

Once Goldblum learned of the College’s oversight, she told her direct supervisor,

Dr. Bleuzette Marshall, and other UC officials that: (1) she planned to investigate how UC

evaluated admissions applications from convicted sex offenders, and (2) she believed that UC

could be considered deliberately indifferent toward potential sex discrimination unless it

provided resources to students who “didn’t feel safe on campus.” R. 54, Pg. ID 858.1 Goldblum

also passed the news along to M.B. Reilly, UC’s Executive Director of Public Relations, and

expressed her intention to formally address the controversy in a letter published by the

University’s student newspaper. That letter reads as follows:

Dear Editor:

I am writing in response to the feedback and concerns expressed by

members of our community regarding the award to and article about [the student].

I understand that members of our community are being impacted by this situation

and are hurting. Please be assured that I hear you. We are looking into various

processes at work so that we can improve them. In the meantime, we have

resources on campus for your support. . . .

We must do better; we will do better, continuing to work to make the

environment safe and equitable. Please don’t give up on us, as we are not giving

up on you. We are here and we hear you.

1

In briefing and at oral argument, Goldblum’s counsel represented that these conversations took place

“approximately around February 5,” Argument 1:42–3:59, and “certainly by February 11, 2019,” Reply Br. 7.

No. 22-3289 Goldblum v. Univ. of Cincinnati Page 3

R. 66-1, Pg. ID 2534. The letter also included the phone numbers for several counseling

services.

In response, Reilly directed Goldblum to check with her direct supervisor before

submitting anything. So Goldblum forwarded the letter to Marshall.

After reading the letter during the afternoon of February 12, Marshall ordered Goldblum

not to submit anything until Marshall obtained permission and coordinated with other University

officials. While discussing the letter with her colleagues, Marshall discovered that the UC

administration had authorized Ken Petren, the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, to

formally address the controversy. Marshall then informed Goldblum of her discovery, reminding

her that Dean Petren, not Goldblum, had been “tasked with issuing [the] University response[].”

R. 55, Pg. ID 1246. Marshall also identified problems with the content of Goldblum’s letter. For

one, the letter included the offending student’s name. For another, it made vague promises—like

“we will do better”—which Goldblum lacked the power to both make and keep. Id.

Marshall also identified a procedural concern: before issuing any official

communications, the University would typically develop an FAQ, anticipating and answering

questions potentially arising from such communications. But there was no FAQ accompanying

Goldblum’s letter. Nevertheless, Marshall promised to continue discussing the letter with her

colleagues and ordered Goldblum not to submit anything unless and until Marshall obtained

approval.

Goldblum didn’t wait. Mere hours after their conversation, she texted Marshall that she

intended “to send in the letter to the editor,” that she would accept “any repercussions” for her

actions, and that she just wanted “to be done and go home.” R. 64-1, Pg. ID 2302. In response,

Marshall texted: “I’m on a call regarding the matter. Please do not send.” Id. Goldblum sent

the letter to the newspaper anyway.

Once Marshall ended her call, she called Goldblum and asked whether she had sent the

letter. Goldblum said, “Yeah, I sent it, and I don’t regret what I did.” R. 55, Pg. ID 1251. As

her direct supervisor, Marshall reiterated: “You can’t get ahead of our colleagues. There was

already a process in place. We can’t insert ourselves into the system or into a process.” Id.

No. 22-3289 Goldblum v. Univ. of Cincinnati Page 4

In fact, a few minutes later, Dean Petren emailed Goldblum the College’s statement addressing

the controversy and its plan to remove the student from the College’s article recognizing each

cord recipient.

Early the next morning, Goldblum asked the student newspaper to replace her initial

letter with an updated draft. The newer draft was nearly identical to the earlier one, except it

expressly mentioned the University’s Title IX office. Goldblum didn’t tell Marshall about the

revised letter, much less obtain permission to send it. For reasons not evident in the record,

Goldblum’s letter was never published.

Following these incidents, Marshall reported Goldblum’s insubordination to UC’s

human-resources department. During the internal investigation that followed, the University

discovered additional infractions, namely that Goldblum repeatedly ignored Title IX complaints,

justified her insubordination to her staff, repeatedly criticized her colleagues in front of her staff,

routinely interrupted her staff’s work, and missed many of her own reporting deadlines.

At the conclusion of its investigation, UC allowed Goldblum to resign in lieu of

termination for her insubordination and unacceptable work behavior in violation of UC’s

Conduct Policy. See R. 66-1, Pg. ID 2428, 2430 (establishing UC’s right to “immediately

terminat[e]” Goldblum for “insubordination,” Policy No. 15.02 §§ 2, 3(c), or for deviating from

“standard and acceptable behavior,” id. § 3(ff)). After Goldblum resigned on March 15, 2019,

UC discovered that she hadn’t followed up on a February 9 email accusing the sex offender of

assaulting other persons on UC’s campus. Nor had she performed any further investigations into

UC’s admissions practices.

Though Goldblum had said that she’d accept “any repercussions” for her actions,

Goldblum sued UC for unlawful termination under Title VII and Title IX. The district court

dismissed Goldblum’s Title VII claim and subsequently granted UC summary judgment on

Goldblum’s Title IX claim. Goldblum now appeals the ruling on her Title IX claim, as well as

the district court’s orders denying her motions for additional discovery. Addressing Goldblum’s

Title IX claim and discovery motions in turn, we affirm.

No. 22-3289 Goldblum v. Univ. of Cincinnati Page 5

II.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, construing the facts

in the light most favorable to Goldblum. Bose v. Bea, 947 F.3d 983, 988 (6th Cir. 2020).

Title IX provides: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded

from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any

education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a).

While this statute doesn’t expressly provide a cause of action, the Supreme Court has told us that

Title IX is enforceable through an implied right of action. Cannon v. Univ. of Chi., 441 U.S.

677, 688–89 (1979). And particularly relevant here, the Court has held that “when a funding

recipient retaliates against a person because he complains of sex discrimination, this constitutes

intentional discrimination on the basis of sex, in violation of Title IX.” Jackson v. Birmingham

Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167, 174 (2005) (cleaned up).

Under our precedent, we review Goldblum’s Title IX claim under the analogous test for

Title VII retaliation claims. Bose, 947 F.3d at 988–89. Because Goldblum relies on only

indirect evidence, she may bring a prima facie retaliation claim under Title IX by showing

that: “(1) she engaged in protected activity, (2) the funding recipient knew of the protected

activity, (3) she suffered an adverse [employment]-related action, and (4) a causal connection

exists between the protected activity and the adverse action.” Id. (cleaned up).

If Goldblum establishes a prima facie case, UC must articulate a legitimate,

nonretaliatory reason for her termination. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792,

802 (1973). Should UC meet its burden, Goldblum may then refute UC’s proffered reason by

showing that it’s really a pretext for unlawful retaliation. Flowers v. WestRock Servs., Inc.,

979 F.3d 1127, 1132–33 (6th Cir. 2020).

Because UC presented legitimate reasons for seeking Goldblum’s resignation, we

proceed to pretext without deciding whether Goldblum established a prima facie case.

No. 22-3289 Goldblum v. Univ. of Cincinnati Page 6

A.

UC claims two nonretaliatory reasons for asking Goldblum to resign. First, she was

insubordinate: she “violated a direct order” from Marshall when she sent the letter. R. 64-1, Pg.

ID 2307. Second, she failed to abide by UC’s standard of acceptable behavior: she justified her

insubordination to her staff, criticized her colleagues in front of her staff, interrupted her staff’s

work, routinely ignored Title IX complaints, and missed many of her own reporting deadlines.

And UC’s Conduct Policy permits “immediate termination” for both “[i]nsubordination” and

“[a]ny other deviation from standard and acceptable behavior.” R. 66-1, Pg. ID 2428, 2430.

Thus, UC has identified at least two ways in which Goldblum violated its policies, either of

which provides for immediate termination.

Our precedent also supports that conclusion. We have previously held that an

employee’s insubordination and her failure to follow company policies constitute legitimate,

nonretaliatory reasons to terminate employment. See Yazdian v. ConMed Endoscopic Techs.,

Inc., 793 F.3d 634, 651 (6th Cir. 2015); see also Laughlin v. Metro. Wash. Airports Auth., 149

F.3d 253, 260 (4th Cir. 1998) (Congress didn’t “intend[] to immunize insubordinate, disruptive,

or nonproductive behavior at work.” (quotation omitted)). So what logic compels, precedent

confirms: UC had legitimate nonretaliatory reasons to fire Goldblum.

B.

Because UC has proffered two legitimate reasons for seeking her resignation, Goldblum

must accordingly demonstrate pretext to succeed on her retaliation claim.

Plaintiffs typically show pretext by establishing one of three things: “(1) that the

proffered reasons had no basis in fact, (2) that the proffered reasons did not actually motivate the

employer’s action, or (3) that [the proffered reasons] were insufficient to motivate the

employer’s action.” Chen v. Dow Chem. Co., 580 F.3d 394, 400 (6th Cir. 2009). These are not

the only ways that a plaintiff can establish pretext. Rather, these three categories are simply a

“convenient way of marshaling evidence and focusing it on the ultimate inquiry: ‘did the

employer fire the employee for the stated reason or not?’” Tingle v. Arbors at Hilliard, 692 F.3d

523, 530 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Chen, 580 F.3d at 400 n.4). As a result, a plaintiff may also

No. 22-3289 Goldblum v. Univ. of Cincinnati Page 7

proffer some other “cognizable explanation of how the evidence she has put forth establishes

pretext.” Miles v. S. Cent. Hum. Res. Agency, Inc., 946 F.3d 883, 888 (6th Cir. 2020). But here,

Goldblum has not produced “sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably reject”

UC’s proffered reasons for firing her. Id.

1.

First, Goldblum argues that UC had no factual basis for seeking her resignation because:

(i) she wasn’t insubordinate, and (ii) she didn’t violate the University’s standard of acceptable

behavior. But neither argument stands up to scrutiny.

i.

Goldblum argues she wasn’t insubordinate for two reasons: (1) her letter was protected

activity under Title IX, so it couldn’t have constituted insubordination, and (2) “a Title IX

Coordinator cannot be insubordinate.” Appellant’s Br. 26 (cleaned up). We reject each in turn.

First, Goldblum’s letter wasn’t protected activity because it didn’t complain of sex

discrimination. See Jackson, 544 U.S. at 174. To be protected by Title IX, a complaint must

specifically accuse a recipient of engaging in intentional sex discrimination—a “vague charge of

discrimination” isn’t enough. Yazdian, 793 F.3d at 645 (cleaned up). And it must provide notice

to an official authorized to address the complaint and “institute corrective measures on the

recipient’s behalf.” Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 290 (1998); Jackson,

544 U.S. at 181.

Goldblum’s letter fails to satisfy either requirement.

For one thing, the letter didn’t specifically accuse UC of intentionally discriminating

based on sex. Instead, it merely promised to make unspecified policy changes, expressed

sympathy to UC students, provided telephone numbers for various counseling services, and

defended UC’s efforts to “make the environment safe and equitable.” R. 66-1, Pg. ID 2534. So

at most, the letter hints at UC’s possible failure to provide the appropriate resources required by

Title IX’s implementing regulations. But that vague suggestion doesn’t amount to a specific

allegation of intentional discrimination.

No. 22-3289 Goldblum v. Univ. of Cincinnati Page 8

For another, Goldblum didn’t send her letter to an official authorized to both address the

controversy and “institute corrective measures on the [University’s] behalf.” Gebser, 524 U.S. at

290. Instead, she sent it to the editor of the student newspaper. So her letter failed to notify the

proper UC officials.

Thus, Goldblum’s letter isn’t protected by Title IX because it neither complained of sex

discrimination nor was sent to an official authorized to do something about it.

Second, Goldblum’s argument that “a Title IX Coordinator cannot be insubordinate” fails

because she cites no authority for such a consequential assertion, see Appellant’s Br. 26–29, nor

can we find one. To be sure, Goldblum accurately states that being a Title IX Coordinator

involves “coordinating the recipient’s responses” to sex discrimination complaints, “monitoring

outcomes, identifying and addressing any patterns, and assessing effects on the campus climate.”

R. 69-6, Pg. ID 2934. But it doesn’t follow that anything done in that role is exempt from all

University oversight or discipline.

ii.

Goldblum next argues that UC’s second proffered reason had no basis in fact because UC

contrived evidence of her poor work performance after asking her to resign. Because UC had

another legitimate reason—insubordination—for firing Goldblum, this argument is ultimately

inconsequential. But even taking the argument straight on, it fails.

Specifically, Goldblum claims UC couldn’t have truly fired her for her poor work

performance because its only contemporary source supporting that conclusion came from a

flawed and self-interested report from one of Goldblum’s employees, Morgan Shaw. And

Goldblum alleges Shaw’s report was unreliable for two reasons. First, she argues that Shaw had

limited work experience. Second, she contends that Shaw had a conflict of interest because

Goldblum intended to investigate her father, Assistant Dean of Students Daniel Cummins, for his

role in admitting the sex offender.

But even assuming Goldblum’s allegations about Shaw were true, they wouldn’t matter

for two independent reasons. First, Shaw’s report wasn’t UC’s only evidence of Goldblum’s

No. 22-3289 Goldblum v. Univ. of Cincinnati Page 9

poor work performance. Rather, two other employees also complained of her “unprofessional”

and even “disrespectful” behavior towards her colleagues. R. 55, Pg. ID 1189, 1193–94.

Second, even if these complaints failed to establish Goldblum’s poor work performance

before she resigned, reliable corroborating evidence was discovered shortly thereafter. Indeed,

Goldblum’s own files and correspondence confirm that she failed to meet many of her reporting

deadlines. Instead of disputing whether she failed to meet these deadlines, however, Goldblum

claims that the “suspicious timing” of the discovery suggests pretext. Reply Br. 1. Specifically,

she alleges that UC’s “shifting” and “post-hoc justifications” demonstrate it had no legitimate

reason to fire her for unprofessional conduct until after she resigned. Id. at 1–2. But this

argument fails for two reasons.

For starters, UC may rely on newly discovered evidence so long as it fits within one of

the reasons it gave for terminating Goldblum “at the time of discharge” and during litigation.

Miles, 946 F.3d at 891; Cicero v. Borg-Warner Auto., Inc., 280 F.3d 579, 592 (6th Cir. 2002).

Here, Marshall referenced Goldblum’s poor work performance in the termination letter she

prepared in case Goldblum refused to resign. And both below and on appeal, UC has

consistently maintained that it terminated Goldblum for unacceptable behavior. Therefore, we

won’t infer pretext merely because UC elaborated on its justifications for terminating Goldblum

after she resigned.

Moreover, because Goldblum’s own files and correspondence confirmed that she failed

to meet many of her reporting deadlines, UC had a factual basis to terminate her for poor work

performance.

Therefore, even if Shaw’s report were unreliable, no reasonable juror could conclude that

UC’s work-performance rationale wasn’t based in fact.2

2

Regardless, UC’s reliance on any false information would’ve been excused under the “honest belief” rule.

Smith v. Chrysler Corp., 155 F.3d 799, 807 (6th Cir. 1998). To overcome UC’s honest-belief defense, Goldblum

must do more than merely allege that the investigation was less than “optimal.” Id. at 807. Rather, she must put

forth evidence showing that UC’s reliance on false information was “too obvious to be unintentional.” Id. (citation

omitted). Here, Marshall found evidence confirming Goldblum’s disrespectful behavior and missed reporting

deadlines. Employers relying on less thorough investigations have prevailed on the honest-belief defense. Seeger v.

No. 22-3289 Goldblum v. Univ. of Cincinnati Page 10

2.

Next, Goldblum argues that UC’s proffered reasons didn’t actually motivate it to seek her

resignation. Instead, Goldblum argues that UC asked her to resign to prevent her from

discovering systemic issues with its admissions process. But no reasonable juror could find that

this argument establishes pretext.

First, UC never opposed Goldblum’s independent investigation. Instead, the University

largely shared and addressed Goldblum’s concerns. For example, beyond issuing its own

response to the controversy, UC deleted the article’s mention of the sex offender, met with

student leadership, and held a town hall to address students’ concerns. To the extent UC

disagreed with Goldblum, such disagreement was about minor details, such as who should issue

a response and when it should be issued. And even then, UC tried to accommodate Goldblum’s

concerns. Indeed, despite her numerous objections to Goldblum’s letter, Marshall continued to

run Goldblum’s letter by her colleagues—which she was in the process of doing when Goldblum

sent it out.

Second, Goldblum merely created an investigation file—she made no findings, took no

notes, and logged no investigative work during the remainder of her employment at UC, which

ended more than a month after opening her investigation. So it’s unclear whether UC actually

prevented Goldblum from conducting any investigations.

Thus, no reasonable juror could conclude that UC was motivated by reasons other than

the ones it proffered.

3.

Goldblum also contends that even if she was insubordinate and unprofessional, such

misconduct didn’t sufficiently warrant termination. Specifically, she claims that because these

were her first infractions, UC should’ve given her a less severe reprimand under its “progressive

discipline” policy. Appellant’s Br. 42. We disagree.

Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co., 681 F.3d 274, 286–87 (6th Cir. 2012). And nothing supports Goldblum’s claim that UC’s

decision to terminate her employment was clearly “unworthy of credence.” Smith, 155 F.3d at 807–08.

No. 22-3289 Goldblum v. Univ. of Cincinnati Page 11

To begin, UC’s policies permit “immediate termination” for “conduct and rule

violations.” R. 66-1, Pg. ID 2428. And though these policies also subscribe to the principle of

progressive corrective discipline for first-time infractions, Goldblum wasn’t entitled to the most

lenient reprimand possible. To the contrary, UC’s policies expressly “reserve[] the right to

impose an appropriate level of corrective action, including termination, depending upon the

severity of the violation.” R. 55-1, Pg. ID 1354. And while she ultimately disagreed with the

termination, Goldblum’s own expert acknowledges that Goldblum’s “behavior may have been

deemed ‘severe’ because she ‘defied a direct order.’” R. 69-2, Pg. ID 2864.

Moreover, though the failure to uniformly apply a progressive discipline policy can be

evidence of pretext, Goldblum has identified no similarly situated employee who received a

more lenient reprimand despite engaging in “substantially identical conduct.” Miles, 946 F.3d at

893.

To constitute similarly situated employees, the individuals with whom Goldblum seeks to

compare her treatment “must have dealt with the same supervisor, have been subject to the same

standards and have engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating

circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the employer’s treatment of them.” Younis

v. Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., 610 F.3d 359, 364 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp.,

964 F.2d 577, 583 (6th Cir. 1992)). Though Goldblum needn’t show an exact correlation

between herself and the proposed comparators, she must show similarities in “all relevant

respects.” Bobo v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 665 F.3d 741, 751 (6th Cir. 2012), abrogated on

other grounds by Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013).

Here, Goldblum identifies two director-level employees who were reprimanded—rather

than terminated—for their insubordination. But for two independent reasons, these employees

fail as comparators. First, neither reported to Marshall. See Younis, 610 F.3d at 364.3 Second,

these potential comparators were reprimanded for different conduct: in one case, taking

3

Whether the “same supervisor” criterion “is relevant depends upon the facts and circumstances of each

individual case.” McMillan v. Castro, 405 F.3d 405, 414 (6th Cir. 2005). Indeed, we have observed that requiring

comparators to have the “same supervisor” may be better understood as requiring comparators to have “dealt with

the same ultimate decision-maker.” Id. In this case, we consider the “same supervisor” criterion relevant because

UC President Neville Pinto delegated to Marshall all decision-making authority concerning Goldblum’s discipline.

No. 22-3289 Goldblum v. Univ. of Cincinnati Page 12

University equipment off campus; and in the other, sharing confidential information with a co-

worker. Thus, since they aren’t similarly situated comparators, Goldblum fails to show that UC

didn’t uniformly apply its progressive discipline policy.

Therefore, no reasonable juror could find that Goldblum’s insubordination and

unprofessional behavior was insufficient to warrant termination.

4.

Finally, Goldblum raises two general allegations she claims establish pretext: (1) the

“suspicious timing” between her protected activity and discharge, and (2) Marshall’s “outright

lies.” Appellant’s Br. 39 (cleaned up). Neither stands up to scrutiny.

Start with timing. Goldblum resigned on March 15, 2019, just over one month after she

began complaining that UC “could be considered deliberately indifferent under Title IX” for

“siding with the sex offenders” instead of victims of sex discrimination. R. 54, Pg. ID 794, 801.

In conjunction with other evidence, such “temporal proximity can be used a[s] ‘indirect

evidence’ to support an employee’s claim of pretext.” Asmo v. Keane, Inc., 471 F.3d 588, 598

(6th Cir. 2006). But since Goldblum fails to provide such additional evidence, the mere timing

of her resignation “cannot alone prove pretext.” Id.

Goldblum also points to two instances in which Marshall told students that Goldblum’s

resignation was voluntary instead of coerced. But these statements don’t establish pretext for

two reasons. First, as a factual matter, Goldblum did resign. And she did so voluntarily to avoid

termination. Second, Marshall’s obfuscation is justified by her belief that it would’ve been

inappropriate to “discuss employment matters” with students. R. 55, Pg. ID 1305–06. And we

won’t second-guess this judgment, especially given that its “falsity or incorrectness” isn’t

enough to “impeach the credibility of [UC’s] remaining articulated reason(s)” for requesting

Goldblum’s resignation. Sims v. Cleland, 813 F.2d 790, 793 (6th Cir. 1987). So the alleged lies

don’t prove pretext either.

For all these reasons, Goldblum fails to establish that UC’s two proffered reasons for

seeking her resignation were mere pretexts for retaliation.

No. 22-3289 Goldblum v. Univ. of Cincinnati Page 13

III.

Goldblum also appeals three of the district court’s discovery orders: (1) the order

denying her motion to depose UC President Neville Pinto; (2) the order denying her request for

the records of approximately 15,000 UC employees; and (3) the order denying her Rule 56(d)

motion. We review each for an abuse of discretion. Doe v. City of Memphis, 928 F.3d 481, 486

(6th Cir. 2019). Indeed, district courts have significant discretion “to limit the scope of

discovery where the information sought is overly broad or would prove unduly burdensome to

produce.” Info-Hold, Inc. v. Sound Merch., Inc., 538 F.3d 448, 457 (6th Cir. 2008) (cleaned up);

In re Ohio Execution Protocol Litig., 845 F.3d 231, 236 (6th Cir. 2016) (“Th[e] desire to allow

broad discovery is not without limits and the trial court is given wide discretion in balancing the

needs and rights of both plaintiff and defendant.” (quoting Scales v. J.C. Bradford & Co.,

925 F.2d 901, 906 (6th Cir. 1991))).

A.

Start with Goldblum’s request to depose President Pinto after exceeding the deposition

limit. The magistrate judge granted UC’s motion for a protective order, finding that President

Pinto only had limited knowledge of Goldblum’s resignation. The district court overruled

Goldblum’s objection to the magistrate judge’s order, finding that President Pinto expressly

disclaimed any role in the matter by delegating all decision-making authority to Marshall. That

was not an abuse of the wide discretion afforded by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.

Indeed, Rule 26(c)(1)(A) provides that a district “court may, for good cause, issue an

order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden

or expense” by barring the deposition of that individual. Given the unlikely chance of President

Pinto’s deposition proving beneficial, the district court properly found that even a “slight

inconvenience” imposed by a deposition would “amount to unreasonable harassment” under

Rule 26. R. 45, Pg. ID 610 (quoting Serrano v. Cintas Corp., 699 F.3d 884, 901 (6th Cir.

2012)).

To be sure, the record indicates that Marshall was involved in a UC-wide response to the

triumph-cord controversy and that Marshall informed President Pinto of her decision to let

No. 22-3289 Goldblum v. Univ. of Cincinnati Page 14

Goldblum go. But President Pinto appears to have had very little knowledge of Goldblum’s

letter or Marshall’s reasons for asking Goldblum to resign. Absent a “definite and firm

conviction that the trial court committed a clear error of judgment,” we affirm. FTC v. E.M.A.

Nationwide, Inc., 767 F.3d 611, 623 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Hunt, 521 F.3d

636, 648 (6th Cir. 2008)).

B.

The district court also denied Goldblum’s request to obtain the records of as many as

15,000 UC employees. Both below and on appeal, Goldblum argues that she needed these

records to identify possible comparators. True, Goldblum may establish pretext by showing that

UC treated similarly situated employees who didn’t complain of sex discrimination more

favorably. But Goldblum can’t pick out UC employees at random. Rather, her comparators

must have the same supervisors, must be subject to the same standards, and must have engaged

in similar conduct. Johnson v. Kroger Co., 319 F.3d 858, 867 (6th Cir. 2003).

Because Goldblum held a director-level position at UC, the magistrate judge limited

Goldblum’s request to the approximately thirty “director level” UC employees who had also

been disciplined for insubordination and unacceptable behavior. R. 41, Pg. ID 533. In

overruling Goldblum’s objection to this order, the district court found that this limitation honored

our court’s precedent on potential comparators. We agree, finding no abuse of discretion.4

C.

Finally, the district court denied Goldblum’s motion to defer consideration of UC’s

summary-judgment motion and allow for further discovery under Rule 56(d). Specifically,

Goldblum sought permission to depose President Pinto and obtain the records of thousands of

UC employees, the same requests that the district court denied at earlier stages of the

proceedings.

4

Goldblum’s reliance on Bobo is unavailing. In Bobo, we reversed a district court’s denial of a motion to

compel discovery regarding seven persons who violated the same policy and reported to the same high-level

managers as the plaintiff. 665 F.3d at 753. But Goldblum seeks discovery covering a large swath of UC employees

who almost certainly didn’t report to Marshall, so Bobo is inapposite.

No. 22-3289 Goldblum v. Univ. of Cincinnati Page 15

Our review largely “depends on whether further discovery would have changed the legal

and factual deficiencies in [Goldblum’s] case.” Fifth Third Mortg. Co. v. Chi. Title Ins. Co., 692

F.3d 507, 510 (6th Cir. 2012) (cleaned up). But we also consider Goldblum’s diligence, her

prior opportunities to obtain discovery, the length of the discovery period, and UC’s

responsiveness during discovery. CenTra, Inc. v. Estrin, 538 F.3d 402, 420 (6th Cir. 2008).

Here, the record shows that Goldblum had ample opportunity to take discovery and that

UC was responsive to her requests. Indeed, discovery lasted 6 months, in which time Goldblum

took 10 depositions, served 21 interrogatories, served 20 requests for admissions, and received

more than 4,500 pages of documents from UC. Moreover, for reasons already discussed,

deposing Dr. Pinto and obtaining the records of potentially thousands of dissimilarly situated UC

employees likely wouldn’t cure any of Goldblum’s deficiencies. Specifically, there is little

reason to think that Dr. Pinto knew additional information relevant to this suit, and Goldblum

hasn’t established whether any of the potentially thousands of UC employees were relevant

comparators.

Goldblum thus had ample discovery, and her further discovery requests would likely

have been futile. For these reasons, the district court didn’t abuse its discretion.

* * *

Because the district court properly managed discovery and entered summary judgment

for UC, we affirm.