YOUNGSTOWN - Attorneys representing Ursuline High School and the Catholic Diocese of Youngstown are seeking court intervention to limit public statements about a federal hazing lawsuit, citing concerns over social media posts by the legal team representing the former students.

The potential request for what some call a "gag order" was revealed in filings submitted Friday to the U.S. District Court. In addition to the dispute over publicity, lawyers for the school and diocese moved for judgment in their favor, seeking to end the case, while counsel for the families moved to strike opposing filings for allegedly violating court rules on document length.

In a joint discovery plan, Ursuline’s attorneys indicated they wish to discuss limitations on public statements, specifically citing the opposing counsel’s blog and social media activity. The school and diocese requested an opportunity to brief the court on the issue.

Although not specifically mentioned in the filing, Subodh Chandra, lead counsel for the families, publishes a blog on his law firm’s website and has commented on the hazing cases several times.

Chandra's team responded in the filing by asserting their First Amendment rights and professional obligation to advocate for their clients. They stated that public calls for witnesses have been effective, noting that "numerous victims and witnesses" have come forward since the case was filed in September.

The discovery plan also notes the students' lawyers are investigating and believe "another related lawsuit may be filed soon."

Beyond the dispute over publicity, the diocese and school filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, asking Judge Benita Pearson to rule in their favor based on the complaint itself.

The group being sued—which includes the Diocese, Ursuline High School, Principal Matthew Sammartino, Assistant Principal Margaret Damore, and Athletic Director John DeSantis—argues that even if the facts alleged are true, they do not constitute federal discrimination or hazing under state law.

A primary focus is the claim under Title IX, a federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in education. The lawsuit alleges that "Son Doe" and "Son Roe" were victims of sexual harassment and assault by teammates.

However, the school's legal team argues that Title IX does not cover all student-on-student bullying, only that which is based on sex. They contend the families failed to show the harassment was motivated by the victims' gender.

Instead, the filing points to the accusers' own allegations that players were targeted because they "talked smack" or were "running their mouth."

"While such conduct is reprehensible, it does not rise to the level of a Title IX violation as the acts were not motivated by Son Doe’s or Son Roe’s gender as a male," the filing states.

Attorneys for the school also moved to reject claims of civil liability for hazing under Ohio, Alabama, Florida, and Tennessee laws regarding incidents at football camps.

According to the motion, the events described do not fit the statutory definition of hazing in Ohio, which specifically defines the act as "initiation into" or "maintaining membership" in an organization.

The defense argues that because Son Roe and Son Doe were already established members of the football team, and the harassment was a response to "talking smack" rather than a ritual required to join the team, it cannot legally be classified as hazing.

Furthermore, the school asserts that the parents signed a release form before the trips, waiving the right to sue for negligence.

The filings on Friday also detailed a dispute regarding formatting rules. Minutes after the diocese filed its motion, the families’ legal team, led by Chandra, filed a Motion to Strike.

They contend the school's attorneys violated a Dec. 8 court order regarding document length. They allege the defense filed an eight-page "motion" containing arguments that should have been in the supporting memorandum, followed by a separate 31-page memorandum.

"Because Diocesan Defendants flouted this Court’s Order, the Court should strike the motion and memorandum," the filing stated.

The parties also differ on the immediate future of the case. The families' lawyers believe the case is ready for mediation now, stating there is a "strong likelihood” that it could be resolved based on initial demands and offers. The diocese and school officials argue that mediation should wait until after Judge Pearson rules on their motion for judgment.

Both sides indicated they do not consent to having the case assigned to a magistrate judge, ensuring the litigation will remain under Judge Pearson.

The court has not yet ruled on either motion.