U.S. District Judge Benita Pearson has struck a request by the Diocese of Youngstown and Ursuline High School to dismiss one of the civil lawsuits involving alleged football team misconduct, ruling that the defense’s legal team violated the "letter and spirit" of court rules regarding document length.

Pearson granted a request by the families suing the school to remove the filing from the record, describing the defense’s attempt to bypass page limits as "disingenuous."

The ruling temporarily blocks the attempt by the Diocese and school administrators to end the case. Pearson ordered that the defense may not file a replacement motion until the court issues a new order permitting them to do so.

In her order, Pearson warned that the violation might carry penalties. She wrote that the court will now "ponder whether and what sanctions shall be imposed" on the defense team. Under local civil rules cited by the judge, failure to comply with page limitations is sanctionable at the court's discretion.

Attorneys for the school—representing the Diocese, Ursuline High School, Principal Matthew Sammartino, Assistant Principal Margaret Damore, and Athletic Director John DeSantis—had previously asked the court for permission to file a longer legal memorandum than standard rules allow. The court granted them a 30-page limit.

However, the legal team filed an eight-page motion containing legal arguments, followed by a separate 31-page memorandum supporting that motion. Pearson ruled that when combined, the filings contained nearly 40 pages of argument, exceeding the court-ordered limit by seven pages.

"A thirty-seven-page memorandum is likely the product of an unrestrained scribe and not focused in a way most helpful to the Court," Pearson wrote.

Attorneys for the families, filing anonymously as "Doe" and "Roe," had argued in a motion to strike that the defense "sneaked" legal issues into sections of the document that are usually exempt from page counts to evade the court's order.

The procedural dispute arises from a lawsuit alleging a pattern of severe misconduct within the Ursuline football program. The plaintiffs, identified as former players, allege they were subjected to hazing and sexual assault by teammates during overnight team camps in 2024 and 2025.

The complaint accuses school officials and coaching staff of negligence, asserting they failed to provide adequate supervision during these trips. The families contend that administrators were aware, or should have been aware, of a culture of harassment but failed to intervene to protect the students.

The stricken filing had argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed because the conduct did not meet the legal definitions required for liability. Specifically, Diocese attorneys contended that federal Title IX claims were invalid because the alleged harassment was not based on sex or gender.

The memorandum stated that players were targeted for "talking smack" rather than because of a discriminatory motive against their gender.

"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 defense argued.

Enacted in 1972, Title IX is a federal civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in any education program or activity that receives federal funding. While it is famously known for ensuring equal funding for women’s sports, its legal scope is broader.

Under the law, sexual harassment and sexual violence are considered forms of sex discrimination. Schools are legally required to investigate and address such misconduct if it creates a "hostile environment" that denies a student their ability to participate in education. However, for a school to be held liable for damages in court, plaintiffs generally must prove that school officials had "actual knowledge" of the harassment and responded with "deliberate indifference”.

Regarding state hazing allegations, the school's legal team asserted the claims were invalid because Ohio law defines hazing specifically as an act of initiation into an organization. The defense argued that because the students were already members of the football team at the time of the trips, the conduct did not legally qualify as hazing.

Additionally, the defense claimed the families signed release forms before the football camps, expressly assuming the risk for injuries and releasing the school from liability for negligence.