A federal judge has ordered families and school officials to attempt to settle a lawsuit involving allegations of misconduct within the Ursuline High School football program.

During a Wednesday meeting held by telephone, U.S. District Judge Benita Pearson moved the case into a new phase by referring the dispute to a mediator. She also ordered that portions of the families’ current legal complaint be removed, calling some of the writing "extraneous."

The lawsuit was filed by families using the names "Doe" and "Roe" to protect the privacy of their children. They allege that several student-athletes were victims of hazing and sexual assault during football team trips in 2024 and 2025. The families claim that coaches and school administrators at Ursuline and the Catholic Diocese of Youngstown failed to protect the students.

The case, which has grown to include dozens of defendants, including school officials, coaches, several students and their parents, was sent to mediation by Judge Pearson. Mediation is a process where a neutral third party, in this case Magistrate Judge Carmen Henderson, helps both sides talk to each other to see if they can settle without going to a full trial. Judge Pearson ordered that the meetings should happen before April 27.

While the parties agreed to try mediation, the case will still move forward in the background. The judge and the lawyers discussed a timeline for "fact discovery," which is the period when both sides must share evidence, documents, and witness statements.

While the judge set a path for a possible settlement, she also handed a partial victory to the football coaches named in the suit.

Attorneys for head coach Daniel Reardon and assistant coaches Timothy McGlynn and Christian Syrianoudis had asked the judge to "strike," or delete, 183 paragraphs from the families' 290-page legal document. They argued the writing was meant to "cast aspersions" and unfairly create bias against the coaches rather than stating simple legal facts.

Judge Pearson agreed that parts of the complaint went too far. In her opinion, she noted that the legal complaint "does not speak; it shouts."

A primary target was a 13-page footnote that the judge found to be entirely extraneous to the legal merits of the case. The footnote contained a critique of the Catholic Diocese’s broader policies and referenced various national scandals involving the Catholic Church, which the plaintiffs had argued established a systemic culture of silence. However, the court determined that these wide-ranging historical grievances did not meet the "short and plain" requirement of federal court rules and were irrelevant to the specific incidents involving the football team in 2024 and 2025.

Judge Pearson also ordered the deletion of dozens of paragraphs that detailed alleged misconduct occurring years before the current plaintiffs were part of the Ursuline program. The families’ legal team had included these accounts of past bullying and hazing to illustrate a long-standing pattern of neglect, but the judge ruled that a legal complaint is not the place for a history of the school’s past troubles. By removing these sections, the court effectively narrowed the scope of the lawsuit to the specific harm suffered by the "Doe" and "Roe" children during recent team trips, rather than allowing the case to become a broad referendum on the school's historical culture.

The coaches also won their argument regarding the tone of the document, as the judge agreed that the original writing used descriptive phrases and adjectives designed more to cast aspersions than to state objective facts. This included "scandalous" or "impertinent" details about the locker room behavior of various students who were not named as defendants in the suit.

The court found that including the anecdotes served more to create bias in the public record than to support the legal claims of Title IX violations.

She ruled that the families’ lawyers violated court rules that require legal claims to be "short and plain." The judge ordered that several specific sections be removed from the record. The families will now have to file a "third amended complaint" that leaves out the deleted information.

Wednesday’s hearing also addressed how those involved in the case should behave while the lawsuit is active.

Judge Pearson discussed a possible order that would ban any of the lawyers or the people involved in the suit from posting about the federal court case on social media or blogs. This is often done in high-profile cases to ensure that a future jury is not influenced by opinions or information shared online. Court notes do not indicate that such an order was issued at the time.

Additionally, the families' legal team raised concerns about "blanket representation,” referring to the fact that lawyers for the school are representing several employees. The plaintiffs expressed worry that this could create a conflict of interest. Judge Pearson told the families' lawyers they must file a formal motion if they want the school's lawyers to explain why this arrangement is fair.

The telephone conference involved nearly 20 different lawyers. Most of the people sued in the case attended the call, though the judge noted that a few parents and one attorney were "absent without leave of court."

Those present included top officials from the Diocese and Ursuline High School, as well as the coaches and the families who started the lawsuit. Because some of the students being sued do not have their own lawyers, the judge discussed appointing "pro bono" counsel—lawyers who work for free—to help them with limited parts of the case.

The lawsuit alleges that the environment on the Ursuline football team was dangerous and that older players were allowed to harass younger ones. The families claim that because the school receives federal money, it violated a law called Title IX, which is supposed to protect students from sex-based discrimination and harassment.

The school and the Diocese have denied the claims. In previous filings, they argued that the events described did not meet the legal definition of hazing under Ohio law because the students were already members of the team, rather than recruits trying to join. They also argued that the incidents were not based on gender but were instead personal conflicts.

With the move to mediation, both sides will now have to decide if they can find common ground or if the case will result in a courtroom battle next year, or even later.