UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT of INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ______) in Re: ) Chapter 11 ) USA GYMNASTICS, ) Case No

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 1 of 32

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ______) In re: ) Chapter 11 ) USA GYMNASTICS, ) Case No. 18-09108-RLM-11 ) Debtor. ) ______) ) USA GYMNASTICS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Adv. Case No. 19-50012 ) ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE ) COMPANY f/k/a CIGNA INSURANCE ) COMPANY, GREAT AMERICAN ) ASSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY ) INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS INC., ) NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY, ) RSUI INDEMNITY COMPANY, TIG ) INSURANCE COMPANY, VIRGINIA ) SURETY COMPANY, INC. f/k/a ) COMBINED SPECIALTY INSURANCE ) COMPANY, WESTERN WORLD ) INSURANCE COMPANY, ENDURANCE ) AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, ) AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, ) INC., AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE ) COMPANY, AND DOE INSURERS, ) ) Defendants. ) ______)

DEFENDANT TIG INSURANCE COMPANY’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF USA GYMNASTICS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Pertaining to Abuse or Molestation Exclusions)

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 2 of 32

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ...... 1

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE ...... 2

I. THE SEXUAL ABUSE CLAIMS ...... 2

II. THE COVERAGE DISPUTE ...... 2

III. THE TIG POLICIES AT ISSUE ...... 4

A. The 1991 and 1992 Primary Policies ...... 4

B. The 2001 Policies ...... 5

C. The 1996 Excess Policy ...... 8

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE ...... 8

ARGUMENT ...... 9

I. USAG IS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ...... 9

II. INDIANA INSURANCE CONTRACT INTERPRETATION PRINCIPLES ...... 10

III. USAG IS NOT ENTITLED TO COVERAGE UNDER THE 2001 POLICIES ...... 11

A. The Abuse and Molestation Exclusion Applies to Participant Liability Coverage ...... 12

B. The Sexual Abuse or Molestation Liability Coverage Form ...... 15

IV. USAG IS NOT ENTITLED TO COVERAGE UNDER THE 1996 EXCESS POLICY...... 17

A. The Molestation Exclusion Precludes Coverage ...... 17

B. Regardless of the Exclusion, Coverage Also is Limited to Five Discrete Events ...... 18

V. USAG IS NOT ENTITLED TO COVERAGE UNDER THE 1991 AND 1992 POLICIES...... 19

A. The Care, Custody or Control Requirement ...... 20

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 3 of 32

TABLE OF CONTENTS CONT’D. Page

B. If the Claimants Were Not in the Care, Custody or Control of USAG at the Time of Abuse, USAG Has Not Satisfied a Requirement for Coverage Under The Policies ...... 23

CONCLUSION ...... 24

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 4 of 32

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page

Bedwell v. Sagamore Ins. Co., 753 N.E.2d 775 (Ind. App. 2001)………………………10, 11

Buckeye State Mut. Ins. Co. v. Carfield, 914 N.E.2d 315 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)………...10, 11

Capitol Indemnity, Inc. v. Brown, 581 S.E.2d 339 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003) ...... 13

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) ...... 9

Children’s Aid Soc’y of Montgomery Cty. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 1995 WL 251374 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 28, 1995) ...... 21

Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Guzorek, 690 N.E.2d 664 (Ind. 1997) ...... 18

CWC Builders, Inc. v. United Specialty Ins. Co., 134 F. Supp. 3d 589 (D. Mass. 2015) .... 14

FLM, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 24 N.E.3d 444 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) ...... 14

Gemini Ins. Co. v. Earth Treks, Inc., 260 F. Supp. 3d 467 (D. Md. 2017) ...... 21

Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc. v. AMCO Ins. Co., 983 N.E.2d 574 (Ind. 2013)……………………………………………………………………….11, 18, 20

McCormick v. Comm’r of Ind. DOC, 2019 WL 251249 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 16, 2019) ...... 10

Pipefitters Welfare Educ. Fund v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 976 F.2d 1037 (7th Cir. 1992) ...... 14

Selective Ins. Co. of Am. v. Smiley Body Shop, Inc., 260 F. Supp. 3d 1023 (S.D. Ind. 2017) ...... 9

TIG Ins. Co. v. Merryland Childcare & Dev. Ctr., Inc., No. 04-266 B, 2007 WL 316571 (W.D. Tenn., Jan. 31, 2005) ...... 16

TIG Insurance Company v. Smart School, 401 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (S.D. Fla. 2005) ...... 16

Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Summit Corp. of America, 715 N.E.2d 926 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) ...... 14

Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Field, 670 F.3d 93 (1st Cir. 2012) ...... 21

iii

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 5 of 32

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CONT’D.

Cases Page

Westfield Insurance Co. v. TCFI Bell SPE III, LLC, 2019 WL 1434716 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 30, 2019)...... 14

Statutes and Rules

FED. R. CIV. P. 56 ...... 9

Miscellaneous

Black’s Law Dictionary 350 (2d Ed. 2001)...... 18

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 6 of 32

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

In bringing the current motion for partial summary judgment, Plaintiff USA

Gymnastics (“USAG”) violates the Court-ordered (and agreed) stay of this adversarial proceeding and improperly seeks to use premature motion practice as negotiating leverage in connection with ongoing mediation efforts. Despite the pending stay and the fact that TIG

Insurance Company (“TIG”) has neither filed a responsive pleading nor had the opportunity to conduct any discovery, USAG unilaterally decided that the issue of coverage under numerous policies should be heard at this time. USAG’s motion is improper on these bases alone.

USAG fares no better with respect to the merits of its arguments. USAG acknowledges that the five policies at issue in its motion each contain (or incorporate) an exclusion expressly precluding coverage for sexual abuse or molestation. In an attempt to create coverage that was not bargained for, USAG seeks to dissect the policies and apply unreasonable interpretations contrary to the language and overall intent of the policies as well as fundamental contract interpretation principles under Indiana law. The Indiana Supreme Court, and courts throughout the country, have enforced the abuse or molestation exclusions as clear and unambiguous.

Accordingly, the abuse or molestation exclusions in the TIG policies must be enforced as written here to bar coverage for the sexual abuse claims pending against USAG, a risk for which USAG did not pay a premium. USAG’s efforts to concoct “loopholes” in the TIG policies to avoid application of these clear exclusions and rewrite more favorable contract terms should not be tolerated.

TIG respectfully requests that this Court deny USAG’s motion for partial summary judgment and grant TIG’s cross-motion for summary judgment enforcing the abuse or molestation exclusions as written.

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 7 of 32

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

I. THE SEXUAL ABUSE CLAIMS

Beginning in 2017, USAG has been sued by several hundred former and current gymnasts claiming sexual abuse or molestation by former USAG athletic trainer/physician,

Women’s National Team doctor and National Medical Director, Larry Nassar, under the guise of medical treatment (the “Sexual Abuse Claims”). See, e.g., Dkt. No. 2-1; Ex. 1 at ¶ 9; Ex. 2 at ¶ 9. The Sexual Abuse Claims generally assert that from 1986 to approximately 2015 Nassar

“worked for USAG in various positions and capacities” and that USAG “regularly recommended . . . Nassar to its members.” See Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 6-7; 211; 1415; Ex. 2 at ¶ 195. The allegations of sexual abuse by Nassar date back to the late 1980’s through 2016. See, e.g., Ex.

2 at ¶¶ 897; 449-456.

The Sexual Abuse Claims assert various causes of action arising from the sexual abuse including negligence, vicarious liability, express/implied agency, negligent supervision, negligent failure to warn or protect, negligent failure to train or educate, negligent retention, intentional infliction of emotional distress and fraud/misrepresentation. See Ex.1 at ¶¶ 1512-

1596; Ex. 2 at ¶¶ 1298-1384.1 On December 5, 2018, USAG filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, resulting in an automatic stay of the underlying lawsuits. Subsequently, the Sexual Abuse Claims (which now also allege abuse by more than

50 perpetrators) have been submitted as Proofs of Claim in the bankruptcy action.

II. THE COVERAGE DISPUTE

On April 6, 2018, USAG filed a lawsuit in Marion County Superior Court against TIG and several other of its insurers seeking a determination of the parties’ respective rights and obligations under the policies. The insurers removed the case to the United States District

1 By citing to the allegations of the underlying lawsuits, TIG does not accept their veracity. However, to the extent that USAG has forced substantive motion practice at this early juncture prior to resolution of the underlying claims, TIG must rely upon the allegations in responding to the motion and defending its coverage positions.

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 8 of 32

Court for the Southern District of Indiana, and the case was voluntarily stayed while USAG and the insurers sought to resolve the Sexual Abuse Claims in mediation. On November 5,

2018, after mediation proved unsuccessful, the District Court lifted the stay and the parties proposed a case management order.

On December 5, 2018, USAG filed a bankruptcy petition in this Court and a “Notice of

Stay Due to Bankruptcy” in the District Court. The District Court action was administratively terminated subject to the parties’ right to re-open the case within 60 days after the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceedings. On February 1, 2019, USAG commenced this Adversary

Proceeding against the insurers seeking to litigate the same coverage issues as the previously- filed lawsuit.

On March 5, 2019, the insurers filed a Joint Motion to Withdraw the Reference of the

Adversary Proceeding and a Motion for Stay Pending Withdrawal. See Dkt. No. 37. On June

3, 2019, USAG, TIG and all other insurers but one submitted a Notice of Submission of Agreed

Order Granting Motion for Stay on an Interim Basis with Respect to Non-LIU Defendants. See

Dkt. No. 150. The Bankruptcy Court approved that order on June 7, 2019, staying the case pending mediation efforts until September 18, 2019, on which date the Court would hold a hearing on the motion to stay. See Dkt. No. 155. In light of the anticipated mediation efforts and stay entered by the Bankruptcy Court, the District Court denied the Motion to Withdraw the Reference without prejudice to renewal if the case did not settle at mediation. The mediation efforts are ongoing and have not terminated.

Despite agreeing to the Court-ordered stay until September 18, 2019 and the lack of any discovery (or even a responsive pleading filed by TIG), on August 7, 2019, USAG filed a motion for partial summary judgment against TIG and a separate motion for partial summary judgment against co-defendant Ace American Insurance Company (“AAIC”). In its motion,

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 9 of 32

USAG foreshadowed that it had another summary judgment motion against TIG in the works, which it has since filed.2

On August 20, 2019, TIG and AAIC filed a Renewed Motion to Withdraw the

Reference of the Adversary Proceeding, which subsequently was joined by Liberty

International Underwriters (“LIU”). See Dkt. No. 192 & 208. Briefing on that motion remains ongoing, and no hearing date has been set. TIG, AAIC and LIU assert that the forum issue should be determined prior to a hearing on the pending summary judgment motions.

III. THE TIG POLICIES AT ISSUE

USAG’s motion seeks rulings with respect to five liability policies USAG purchased from TIG (collectively, the “TIG Policies”). TIG provides a brief overview and attaches complete copies of the relevant TIG policies as exhibits for ease of reference for the Court.

A. The 1991 and 1992 Primary Policies

TIG issued general liability policy number SSP-02719412 to United States Gymnastics

Federation (n/k/a USA Gymnastics) for the policy period August 1, 1991 to August 1, 1992 (the

“1991 Policy”) and general liability policy number SSP35038808 for the policy period August

1, 1992 to August 1, 1993 (the “1992 Policy”). See Ex. 3 and 4. The 1991 Policy and the 1992

Policy contain an Abuse or Molestation Exclusion (ISO Form CG 21 46 01 87) precluding coverage as follows:

ABUSE OR MOLESTATION EXCLUSION

This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART

This insurance does not apply to “bodily injury”, “property damage”, “advertising injury” or “personal injury” arising out of:

2 USAG’s more recent motion for partial summary judgment filed on August 27, 2019 seeks to confirm the existence and scope of coverage under several “lost policies” allegedly issued by TIG and relies upon a purported “expert report” to do so. See Dkt. No. 204 and 205. USAG’s second motion (involving a fact-intensive issue) also violates the stay and further highlights the prematurity of these motions prior to discovery.

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 10 of 32

(a) the actual or threatened abuse or molestation by anyone of any person while in the care, custody or control of any insured, or

(b) the negligent:

a. employment; b. investigation; c. supervision; d. reporting to the proper authorities, or failure to so report; or e. retention;

of a person for whom any insured is or ever was legally responsible and whose conduct would be excluded by Paragraph 1. above.

See Ex. 3 at 27; Ex. 4 at MP-000062.

B. The 2001 Policies

TIG issued general liability policy number T7 3921762800 to USAG for the policy period August 1, 2001 to August 1, 2002 (the “2001 Primary Policy”)3 and an excess liability policy for the period August 1, 2001 to August 1, 2002, which incorporates the terms of the

2001 Primary Policy unless otherwise stated or inconsistent (the “2001 Excess Policy” and, collectively, the “2001 Policies”). See Ex. 5 and 6.

The 2001 Primary Policy contains an Abuse or Molestation Exclusion (ISO Form CG

21 46 07 98) with substantially the same language as the exclusions in the 1991 and 1992

Policies. See Ex. 5 at MP-000549. The 2001 Primary Policy also contains a Legal Liability to

Participants endorsement, which provides in relevant part as follows:

This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM

* * * A. Additional Exclusions

1. The following is added to SECTION I – COVERAGES, COVERAGE A BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE LIABILITY, 2. Exclusions:

3 Although originally issued with an expiration date of August 1, 2004, the policy was cancelled in its entirety effective August 1, 2002.

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 11 of 32

This insurance does not apply to:

“Bodily injury” to a “participant”.

* * * B. Insuring Agreement

The following is added to SECTION I – COVERAGES:

COVERAGE D – LIABILITY TO “PARTICIPANTS”

1. Insuring Agreement.

a. We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of “bodily injury” to any “participant”. . .

* * *

b. This insurance applies to “bodily injury” only if:

(1) The “bodily injury” is caused by an “occurrence” that takes place in the “coverage territory”; and

(2) The “bodily injury” occurs during the policy period.

See Ex. 5 at MP-000539-40.

The Legal Liability to Participants endorsement shifts coverage for bodily injury to participants from Coverage A to Coverage D of the CGL Coverage Part with certain additional conditions placed upon such coverage, including that USAG purchase and maintain participant accident insurance on behalf of each participant. Id. No additional premium was charged for the Legal Liability to Participants coverage section. Id. at MP-000499.

In addition, the 2001 Primary Policy contains a Sexual Abuse or Molestation Liability

Coverage Form endorsement (the “Abuse Coverage Form”). Id. at MP-000563-70. USAG

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 12 of 32

paid an additional premium of $3,520 for the Abuse Coverage Form to be included in the 2001

Primary Policy. Id. at MP-000499. The Abuse Coverage Form provides as follows, in relevant part:

SEXUAL ABUSE OR MOLESTATION LIABILITY

A. Insuring Agreement

1. We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of “bodily injury” caused by a “sexual abuse occurrence”. We will have the right and duty to defend any “suit” seeking those damages. We may at our discretion investigate any “sexual abuse occurrence” and settle any claim or “suit” that may result.

* * * 2. This insurance applies to a “sexual abuse occurrence” only if it:

a. Takes place in the “coverage territory”; and

b. During the policy period. If the “sexual abuse occurrence” consists of a series of related acts of sexual abuse or molestation, the “sexual abuse occurrence” shall be deemed to have taken place on the date of the first of such series of acts. No coverage is afforded under this policy if the first act of a “sexual abuse occurrence” took place outside the policy period.

See Ex. 5 at MP-000565.

The term “sexual abuse occurrence” is defined as follows:

1. A single act, or multiple, continuous, sporadic, or related acts of sexual abuse or molestation caused by one perpetrator, or by two or more perpetrators acting together. “Sexual abuse occurrence” includes “negligent employment” of any person accused or involved in such sexual abuse or molestation. A “sexual abuse occurrence” must occur while the claimant is in the care, custody or control of an insured, or a person or entity indemnified under an insured contract pursuant to which the Named Insured has legal responsibility for the person or entity.

2. All acts of “sexual abuse occurrence” by an actual or alleged perpetrator or perpetrators, including “negligent employment” of such perpetrator or perpetrators, shall be deemed and construed as one occurrence which takes place when the first act of sexual abuse or molestation occurs, regardless of the number of persons involved, or the number of incidents or locations involved, or the

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 13 of 32

period of time during which the acts of sexual abuse or molestation took place.

Id. at MP-000570. The Abuse Coverage Form contains several other conditions and

exclusions, which are not necessary to the current motion and, therefore, not quoted here.

C. The 1996 Excess Policy

TIG issued excess liability policy number KLB-37498134 to USAG for the policy

period September 16, 1996 to August 1, 1997 (the “1996 Excess Policy”). See Ex. 7. The

1996 Excess Policy contains a Molestation Exclusion providing as follows:

This insurance does not apply to Personal Injury arising out of or contributed to by the molestation of anyone. The term molestation as used here includes, but is not limited to:

1. any actual, alleged or threatened sexual conduct or misconduct;

2. any actual, alleged or threatened mental or physical abuse;

3. any negligent screening, hiring, employment, training or supervision related to paragraphs 1. or 2. above; or

4. any investigation, failure to investigate, or failure to report to proper authorities which is related to paragraphs 1. or 2. above.

for which any insured may be legally liable or for which any insured may have assumed the liability of others.

Id. at MP-000456.

The 1996 Excess Policy also contains a Schedule of Events endorsement limiting

coverage to only those events and dates specified in the policy. Id. at MP-000458; 444-46.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE

At this juncture, no fact discovery has been conducted in the coverage action. Other

than the underlying complaints and limited information provided on a confidential basis in

connection with the mediation, TIG is not in possession of information regarding the Sexual

Abuse Claims and, therefore, cannot state which facts are in dispute at this time. Consideration

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 14 of 32

of TIG’s potential obligations to indemnify USAG under the policies must be based upon the actual facts of the Sexual Abuse Claims, not simply allegations. TIG reserves all rights to dispute facts presented by USAG once it has been granted an opportunity to conduct discovery.

By way of example, USAG argues that the majority of claimants were not in the

“care, custody or control” of USAG as required under the Abuse or Molestation Exclusion in the 1991 and 1992 Policies. USAG has not presented any evidence to support that proposition, which TIG disputes. Discovery is necessary to determine the circumstances of the alleged abuse. Likewise, USAG challenges TIG’s intent in underwriting certain provisions of the TIG

Policies, but no discovery has been done on those issues. Therefore, USAG cannot meet its burden on summary judgment without a factual record, which has yet to be developed in discovery and presented to the Court.

ARGUMENT

I. USAG IS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Summary judgment is proper only if it is demonstrated that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” FED.

R. CIV. P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). The burden is upon the moving party to establish the lack of any disputes of material fact, and courts will view all evidence and reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, with all doubts resolved against the moving party. A court “cannot weigh evidence or make credibility determinations on summary judgment because those tasks are left to the fact-finder.” Selective

Ins. Co. of Am. v. Smiley Body Shop, Inc., 260 F. Supp. 3d 1023, 1028-29 (S.D. Ind. 2017).

Motions for summary judgment are improper where, as here, they are filed during the pendency of a court-ordered stay and prior to the commencement of discovery. See McCormick v.

Comm’r of Ind. DOC, 2019 WL 251249, at *4 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 16, 2019) (denying summary judgment where motion was filed during pendency of a stay and no discovery was conducted).

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 15 of 32

Here, USAG improperly filed a motion for partial summary judgment during the pendency of the mediation stay and prior to the filing of responsive pleadings or the commencement of discovery. USAG desired to proceed with a global mediation of the underlying claims and coverage issues, and the insurers agreed to do so while putting the litigation on hold. USAG’s procedural gamesmanship has forced TIG to dedicate significant time and resources in responding to premature motion practice instead of focusing upon settlement efforts (as agreed by the parties and approved by this Court) and also seeks to side- step substantive consideration of the Motion to Withdraw the Reference, which logically should be resolved prior to motion practice going forward on the coverage issues. For these reasons alone, USAG’s motion should be denied.

In addition to the procedural infirmities of USAG’s motion, USAG cannot satisfy its burden as a matter of law. As set forth herein, the clear language of the abuse or molestation exclusions precludes any obligation to USAG for the underlying Sexual Abuse Claims, and judgment should be entered in favor of TIG as requested in its cross-motion. To the extent the

Court has any doubts regarding the interpretation or intent of the TIG Policies, a proper opportunity to conduct discovery must be afforded. Therefore, USAG’s motion should be denied in its entirety.

II. INDIANA INSURANCE CONTRACT INTERPRETATION PRINCIPLES

Under Indiana law, contracts of insurance are subject to the same rules of interpretation as other contracts. Bedwell v. Sagamore Ins. Co., 753 N.E.2d 775, 779 (Ind. App. 2001). If the policy language is clear and unambiguous, it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Buckeye State Mut. Ins. Co. v. Carfield, 914 N.E.2d 315, 318 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

The goal of a court interpreting an insurance policy is to “ascertain and enforce the parties’ intent as manifested in the insurance contract.” Id. Courts must “construe the insurance policy

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 16 of 32

as a whole and consider all of the provisions of the contract and not just the individual words, phrases or paragraphs.” Id.

An ambiguity exists “where a provision is susceptible to more than one interpretation and reasonable persons would honestly differ as to its meaning.” Bedwell, 753 N.E.2d at 779.

Importantly, however, an ambiguity “does not exist merely because the parties proffer differing interpretations of the policy language” or “because a controversy exists.” Id.; Carfield, 914

N.E.2d at 318. Although ambiguities generally are resolved in favor of the insured, a court

“will not do so if such an interpretation fails to harmonize the provisions of the contract as a whole.” Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc. v. AMCO Ins. Co., 983 N.E.2d 574, 578 (Ind.

2013). A court “may not extend insurance coverage beyond that provided in the contract, nor may [it] rewrite the clear and unambiguous language of an insurance contract.” Bedwell, 753

N.E.2d at 779.

USAG’s approach in pursuing summary judgment is contrary to Indiana contract interpretation principles. Instead of considering the policies as a whole, USAG has focused its arguments upon only fragments of the TIG Policies. In addition, USAG submits unreasonable interpretations of the abuse or molestation exclusions in the TIG Policies in an attempt to create an ambiguity and, thus, a windfall of coverage that was not purchased by USAG. Indiana law provides that a court must construe an insurance policy as a whole according to its plain and ordinary meaning and that it cannot rewrite the terms of the policy to create coverage.

III. USAG IS NOT ENTITLED TO COVERAGE UNDER THE 2001 POLICIES

Citing only to cherry-picked portions of the 2001 Primary Policy (and ignoring others),

USAG asks this Court to create coverage for the Sexual Abuse Claims beyond what was negotiated and paid for by USAG. When looking at the policy as whole, as this Court must, any potential coverage for sexual abuse or molestation injuries under the 2001 Policies is limited to those satisfying the requirements of the Abuse Coverage Form. The terms of the

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 17 of 32

Abuse Coverage Form are not satisfied here, and USAG is not entitled to coverage under the

2001 Policies.

A. The Abuse and Molestation Exclusion Applies to Participant Liability Coverage

There is no dispute that 2001 Primary Policy contains an Abuse or Molestation

Exclusion. This exclusion is a standard form endorsement promulgated by the Insurance

Services Office (“ISO”) under form number CG 21 46 07 98. Thus, USAG’s statement that

TIG “drafted” the exclusion is not accurate. See Moving Br. at 10. This is not the only misleading statement in USAG’s argument. In quoting the language of the exclusion in its brief, USAG omits the entire prefatory language, which sets forth the intent and scope of the exclusion:

See Ex. 5 at MP-000549.

USAG ignores this express statement setting forth the section of the policy modified by the exclusion—the entire Commercial General Liability Coverage Part (“CGL Part”). Review of the Legal Liability to Participants endorsement establishes that Coverage D – Liability to

Participants is added to Section I of the CGL Part, the same as Coverage A and Coverage B:

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 18 of 32

* * *

Id. at MP-000539.

It is clear that the Abuse or Molestation modifies the entirety of the CGL Part, including

Coverage D, which was added to the policy by a separate endorsement. Coverage D was not specifically identified by name in the Abuse or Molestation Exclusion because standard ISO

CGL forms do not contain a Coverage D. Nevertheless, the language of the exclusion makes clear that it modifies the CGL Part. The fact that Coverage D is not separately referenced by name does not create an ambiguity or render the exclusion inapplicable here.

While it appears that Indiana appellate courts have not confronted this specific issue, courts in other jurisdictions have applied exclusions under similar circumstances. In Capitol

Indemnity, Inc. v. Brown, 581 S.E.2d 339 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003), the general liability policy at issue contained an Assault or Battery Exclusion that applied to the “Commercial General

Liability Coverage Part.” The policy also contained an errors and omissions endorsement providing coverage for damages arising from professional services in the performance of detective or security guard operations (the “E&O Endorsement”). There was no reference to the Assault or Battery Exclusion in the E&O Endorsement. Like USAG here, the insured argued that the Assault or Battery Exclusion was inapplicable to the separate coverage part available under the E&O Endorsement. The court rejected the insured’s argument, reading the policy as a whole and concluding that the Assault or Battery Exclusion applied to the E&O

Endorsement:

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 19 of 32

Simply put, there is no conflict between the contract terms. The assault or battery exclusion limits the Commercial General Liability Part, which includes the E&O coverage. And, although the E&O endorsement establishes coverage for professional liability, it is subject to the same exclusions as other coverage in the Commercial General Liability Coverage Part. To conclude otherwise violates the rules of contract construction and finds ambiguity where there is none.

Id. at 342; see also CWC Builders, Inc. v. United Specialty Ins. Co., 134 F. Supp. 3d 589 (D.

Mass. 2015) (rejecting policyholder’s argument that exclusion applied only to products- completed operations coverage part rather than entire CGL coverage part).

The Indiana cases cited by USAG are neither analogous nor instructive. The holdings of Travelers Indemnity Co v. Summit Corp. of America, 715 N.E.2d 926 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), and Pipefitters Welfare Educ. Fund v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 976 F.2d 1037 (7th Cir. 1992), simply stand for the proposition that an exclusion may apply to one section of an insurance policy but not apply to another section of the policy. TIG does not dispute that possibility. But that is not the situation presented here. The Abuse or Molestation Exclusion expressly states that it modifies the CGL Part. Coverage D is a section of the CGL Part. No leap of logic is necessary to conclude that the Abuse or Molestation Exclusion applies to Coverage D.

Likewise, FLM, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 24 N.E.3d 444 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), and

Westfield Insurance Co. v. TCFI Bell SPE III, LLC, 2019 WL 1434716 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 30,

2019), conclude that coverage for a particular claim may possibly exist under two coverage parts of an insurance policy. Again, this is not the situation at hand. There is no possibility of overlapping coverage because USAG is not entitled to coverage under any section of the 2001

Policies.

The Abuse or Molestation Exclusion expressly precludes coverage for abuse claims under the CGL Part. As a result, USAG bargained for a separate Abuse Coverage Form under the 2001 Policies. As discussed in more detail in section III.B. below, USAG cannot satisfy the requirements to obtain coverage for the pending Sexual Abuse Claims under the Abuse

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 20 of 32

Coverage Form. USAG cannot be permitted to retroactively modify the terms of the CGL Part so as to resurrect coverage that was expressly excluded under the policies. USAG’s interpretation—that USAG is entitled to broad abuse or molestation coverage for athletes under

Coverage D for no extra premium despite negotiating a separate Abuse Coverage Form for an added premium—is not logical or reasonable and does not harmonize the provisions of the policy as a whole. Accordingly, the Abuse or Molestation Exclusion must be enforced as written to apply to the CGL Part of the 2001 Policies, including Coverage D.4

B. The Sexual Abuse or Molestation Liability Coverage Form

In a single sentence in its moving brief, USAG glosses over the fact that the 2001

Primary Policy contains a separate Abuse Coverage Form, which served as the sole source of coverage for claims arising from sexual abuse or molestation.5 USAG does not provide a copy of the endorsement as an exhibit to its motion, and it does not request a declaration of coverage under the Abuse Coverage Form. USAG’s implicit admission that no coverage exists under the Abuse Coverage Form is correct.

The Abuse Coverage Form provides coverage for damages because of bodily injury caused by a “sexual abuse occurrence.” See Ex. 5 at MP-000563. The term “sexual abuse occurrence” is defined to include all acts of sexual abuse or molestation “caused by one perpetrator, or by two or more perpetrators acting together” and also any negligent employment, investigation, supervision, training or retention of an employee or volunteer of the insured. In addition:

All acts of “sexual abuse occurrence” by an actual or alleged perpetrator or perpetrators, including “negligence employment” of such perpetrator or perpetrators, shall be deemed and construed as one occurrence which takes place when the first act of sexual abuse or molestation occurs, regardless of the number of persons involved, or the number of incidents or locations

4 TIG notes that, to the extent this Court finds that the Abuse or Molestation Exclusion does not apply to Coverage D, other potential defenses exist thereunder, including whether USAG purchased and maintained participant accident insurance for each of the claimants. TIG reserves all rights with respect to these defenses, which would require fact discovery and separate motion practice. 5 As noted by USAG, the 2001 Excess Policy follows form to the terms of the 2001 Primary Policy.

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 21 of 32

involved, or the period of time during which the acts of sexual abuse or molestation took place.”

Id. at MP-000570 (the “Deemer Clause”). The Insuring Agreement of the Abuse Coverage

Form also requires that the “sexual abuse occurrence” take place during the policy period and expressly states: “No coverage is afforded under this policy if the first act of a ‘sexual abuse occurrence’ took place outside the policy period.” Id. at MP-000565.

The timing requirement and Deemer Clause in the Abuse Coverage Form has been enforced as clear and unambiguous. See TIG Insurance Company v. Smart School, 401 F.

Supp. 2d 1334, 1342-43 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (“This language is straightforward, comprehensive, and susceptible of only one reasonable interpretation: that the definition of ‘sexual abuse occurrence’ encompasses all of [the perpetrator’s] acts of sexual misconduct . . . regardless of the individual circumstances pertaining to each act comprising a “sexual abuse occurrence.”); TIG Ins. Co. v. Merryland Childcare & Dev. Ctr., Inc., No. 04-2666 B, 2007

WL 316571 (W.D. Tenn., Jan. 31, 2005) (holding that Deemer Clause was valid and enforceable such that all of the teacher’s acts of sexual abuse “related back” to the first act of sexual abuse).

Here, it is undisputed that Larry Nassar’s alleged abuse and molestation of athletes commenced many years before 2001. See, e.g., Ex. 1 at ¶ 9 (“From 1996 to 1999, under the guise of treatment, Defendant Nassar sexually assaulted, abused, and molested dozens of

Plaintiffs . . . .”); Ex. 2 at ¶ 897 (“From approximately 1988 to 1991, under the guise of treatment, Nassar sexually assaulted, battered, abused, and molested Jane C35.”). As the first act of a “sexual abuse occurrence” did not during the TIG policy period, there can be no coverage for the Nassar abuse claims (or other perpetrators committing abuse prior to 2001)

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 22 of 32

under the 2001 Policies.6 USAG seeks to circumvent this clear result by injecting sexual abuse coverage into the CGL Part, a risk that was excluded in the policy USAG purchased.

IV. USAG IS NOT ENTITLED TO COVERAGE UNDER THE 1996 EXCESS POLICY

USAG next claims that an exclusion in the 1996 Excess Policy titled “Molestation

Exclusion” does not apply to bar the sexual molestation claims pending against it. Again,

USAG seeks to parse the language of the exclusion in a manner that is contrary to its plain meaning and common sense.

A. The Molestation Exclusion Precludes Coverage

The Molestation Exclusion states, “This insurance does not apply to Personal Injury arising out of or contributed to by the molestation of anyone.” See Ex. 7 at MP-000456. The term “molestation” includes sexual conduct or misconduct, negligent hiring, employment, training or supervision, and any failure to investigate or report to authorities. Id. USAG correctly notes that the term “Personal Injury” is not defined in the 1996 Excess Policy.

USAG asserts that, because the term “Personal Injury” is bolded and capitalized, it should be attributed the definition of “Personal injury” in the underlying 1996 Primary Policy.

USAG’s argument fails. First, while bolded language may signify a defined term in certain insurance policies, it is clear from the coverage form of the 1996 Excess Policy that defined terms are not bolded, but rather, identified in ALL CAPS. See Ex. 7 at MP-000450. Thus,

Personal Injury should not be considered a “defined term” in the 1996 Excess Policy

Molestation Exclusion and should be given its plain meaning. Second, even if one were to consider the terms of the 1996 Primary Policy, defined terms in the 1996 Primary Policy are denoted by quotation marks, not bold font. See Ex.8 at MP-000399 (explaining that “words and phrases that appear in quotation marks have special meaning. Refer to DEFINITIONS

6 Given USAG’s failure to satisfy the threshold requirements of the Insuring Agreement, TIG does not address any other defenses to coverage under the Abuse Coverage Form but reserves all rights to do so to the extent further litigation proceeds on the issue.

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 23 of 32

(SECTION IV)”). Given these distinctions, USAG cannot establish as a matter of law that the two policies contemplated use of the same definition of “personal injury.”

Under Indiana law, the “failure to define a contractual term does not necessarily make that term ambiguous.” Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Guzorek, 690 N.E.2d 664, 667 (Ind. 1997).

In the absence of a definition of “personal injury” in the 1996 Excess Policy, the Court should

“look to the usual and common meaning” of the term. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc. v. AMCO Ins. Co., 983 N.E.2d 574, 579 (Ind. 2013). Black’s Law Dictionary defines

“personal injury” as “any harm that is caused to a person, such as a broken bone, a cut, or a bruise; bodily injury” as well as “any invasion of a personal right, including mental suffering and false imprisonment.” Black’s Law Dictionary 350 (2d Ed. 2001).

In sum, USAG’s attack of the Molestation Exclusion based solely upon typography is not consistent with the definition format of the 1996 Excess Policy or the 1996 Primary Policy and does not constitute a reasonable interpretation of the provision. Therefore, this Court should apply the Molestation Exclusion according to its plain and ordinary meaning to preclude coverage for bodily injury arising from molestation claims.

B. Regardless of the Exclusion, Coverage Also is Limited to Five Discrete Events

For the reasons discussed above, the Molestation Exclusion bars any potential coverage to USAG for the abuse claims. Even to the extent that the policy did not contain a Molestation

Exclusion, USAG still has not satisfied its burden to establish a right to coverage thereunder.

USAG did not provide the full 1996 Excess Policy to the Court as an exhibit. In a portion of the 1996 Excess Policy omitted by USAG, the policy provides that coverage is limited to specified events and dates only:

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 24 of 32

See Ex. 7 at MP-000458. Consistent with the event-based nature of the coverage, the inception date of the policy (September 16, 1996) coincided with the start date of the John Hancock gymnastics tour, as opposed to the traditional August 1 inception date of the other policies.

The 1996 Excess Policy contains three additional “Changes” endorsements, which add the following four events to the scope of coverage for certain additional premiums:

 1997 John Hancock Tour of World Champions (1/6/97 to 2/10/97)

 1997 International Team Championships (3/18/97 to 3/22/97)

 Women’s Junior Olympic Championships (5/1/97 to 5/4/97)

 Men’s Junior Olympic Championships (5/16/97 to 5/18/97)

Id. at MP-000444-446.

The clear and unambiguous language of the 1996 Excess Policy limits the potential scope of coverage to any claims alleging bodily injury at one of the five events listed above.

USAG bears the burden of establishing that any particular claim arises from abuse during any of these five events. Thus, even putting aside the Molestation Exclusion, TIG cannot be called upon to pay any claim arising from abuse or bodily injury taking place outside of these five discrete events. USAG has not provided any evidence to satisfy this requirement, which would necessarily require discovery and a full factual record that is lacking at this time.

V. USAG IS NOT ENTITLED TO COVERAGE UNDER THE 1991 AND 1992 POLICIES

USAG does not dispute that the 1991 and 1992 Policies contain an Abuse or

Molestation Exclusion. Despite seeking coverage from TIG (and several other insurers) for the claims of hundreds of sexual abuse survivors, USAG remarkably takes the position that the

Abuse or Molestation Exclusion does not apply to the “overwhelming majority” of these claims. USAG’s reasoning is without merit.

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 25 of 32

A. The Care, Custody or Control Requirement

As a threshold matter, USAG does not contend that the Abuse or Molestation Exclusion is ambiguous. Nor could it. The Indiana Supreme Court, and other courts throughout the country, have enforced the Abuse or Molestation Exclusions to unambiguously preclude coverage for sexual abuse claims. See, e.g., Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc. v. AMCO

Ins. Company, 983 N.E.2d 574 (Ind. 2013) (affirming summary judgment to the insurer under

Abuse or Molestation Exclusion where motel employee molested guest).

USAG rests its argument upon a narrow and overly simplistic reading of the “care, custody or control” language of the exclusion. In particular, USAG asserts (without any evidentiary support) that the “overwhelming majority” of sexual abuse claims allege abuse at locations such as Michigan State University or Nassar’s home such that the Abuse or

Molestation Exclusion does not apply. See Moving Br. at 15. USAG’s interpretation of “care, custody or control” in the context of this exclusion is contrary to the wealth of case law, including from Indiana.

In Holiday Hospitality, the Indiana Supreme Court explained that “[n]othing in the terms of [the policy] indicates that the phrase ‘care, custody or control’ is meant to have anything other than a plain and ordinary meaning” and that the “lack of ambiguity also negates any need to construe the clause against the drafting party.” Id. at 579. The Court also instructed that the terms “care, custody or control” are used in the disjunctive, thus “not requiring all three to be satisfied for coverage to be excluded.” Id. In addition, the concept of “care, custody or control” is not mutually exclusive, meaning that a person may be in the “care, custody or control” of multiple persons or entities. Id. at 580-81. The determination of whether a person was in the insured’s “care, custody or control” is a “fact-sensitive inquiry.” Id.

Contrary to USAG’s suggestion, it is not necessary for a claimant to have been abused on USAG’s premises to be deemed in its “care, custody or control” for insurance coverage

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 26 of 32

purposes. See Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Field, 670 F.3d 93 (1st Cir. 2012) (rejecting reliance upon definitions of “care, custody or control” from property context and explaining that “it is not a prerequisite to the application of the Abuse or Molestation Exclusion that an insured be the abuser, nor is it necessary that the abuse occur on the insured’s premises”); Gemini Ins. Co. v. Earth Treks, Inc., 260 F. Supp. 3d 467 (D. Md. 2017) (concluding that claimant was in the

“care, custody or control” of insured rock climbing gym even though abuse by coaches occurred away from the insured’s facilities and in the claimant’s home); Children’s Aid Soc’y of Montgomery Cty. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 1995 WL 251374 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 28, 1995)

(applying dictionary definitions of “care” to mean “charge, supervision management: responsibility for or attention to safety and well-being” and “control” to mean “power or authority to guide or manage” and concluding that abused child was in Children’s Aid Society’s

“care, custody or control” despite being placed with foster parents at the time of abuse).

In Earth Treks, the court gave special consideration to the fact that the alleged abusers were the victim’s coaches. Likening a coach to a teacher, whose “duty of care and custody extends beyond the confines of the schoolyard,” the court concluded that the coaches were

“able to exert influence” over the claimant by way of their positions of authority and trust as coaches of a minor. Earth Treks, 160 F. Supp. 3d at 481. The same can be said of Larry Nassar, a (previously) renowned USAG-affiliated trainer and physician, and other USAG coaches accused of abusing minor athletes.

The Sexual Abuse Claims assert that from 1986 to approximately 2015, Nassar “worked for USAG in various positions and capacities” and that USAG “regularly recommended . . .

Nassar to its members as a reputable physician.”7 See Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 6-7; 211; 1415. It is alleged that USAG’s website touted Nassar as being instrumental to the success of USAG and a

7 TIG again notes that, due to the premature timing of USAG’s motion, it is forced to rely upon allegations of the underlying lawsuits rather than actual facts developed in litigation or determined at trial as is customary in determining an insured’s potential indemnity obligations. TIG’s argument is limited strictly to the scope of potential insurance coverage and not to any potential liability faced by USAG in defending the underlying claims.

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 27 of 32

recipient of distinguished awards. Id. ¶ 1536. The claimants further allege that they “relied on the recommendations” of USAG and USAG coach John Geddert and “continually sought treatment from . . . Nassar.” Id. at ¶ 217. Claimants assert that they were “often under the direct supervision and control of USAG or its agents and were in fact loco parentis with USAG while receiving ‘treatment’ from . . . Nassar.” Id. at ¶ 1412; Ex. 2 at ¶ 985. They further allege that they often were away from their parents and “in complete care, custody, and control of

USAG.” Id. at ¶ 1413; Ex 2. at ¶ 986 (emphasis added). Claimants allege that USAG owed them a “duty to use due care to ensure their safety . . . while interacting with their employees, representatives and/or agents” and that they had a “reasonable expectation that USAG was recommending competent and ethical physicians and trainers for medical treatment who would carry out said treatment without sexual assault, abuse, and molestation.” See Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 1513,

1525. Claimants contend that they were “injured because they relied on Defendant USAG to provide employees or agents who would exercise reasonable skill and care.” Id. at ¶ 1545.

Accordingly, USAG cannot satisfy its burden on summary judgment to show that any particular claimant was not in the “care, custody or control” of USAG or any other insured at the time of abuse simply by stating, generically and without any evidentiary support, that the majority of abuse occurred at other locations. It is undisputed that alleged abuse occurred at facilities owned or leased by USAG, at events sponsored by USAG, and at gyms that are members of USAG. It is also undisputed that athletes were referred to Nassar for medical treatment (regardless of location) by USAG and its coaches. Importantly, the definition of

“named insured” under the policies includes “individuals performing the functions and/or duties of officials, directors, chairmen, spotters, and coaches” of USAG. See Ex. 3 at 03; Ex.

4 at MP-000031. Thus, a claimant need not be in the physical care, custody or control of USAG as a corporate entity, but could also be within the care, custody or control of any of its coaches or other representatives. Moreover, even if an alleged act of abuse occurred at Michigan State

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 28 of 32

University or another off-site location, the existing case law discussed above indicates that the claimants still may be deemed in the “care, custody or control” of USAG or its coaches and/or officials for purposes of the exclusion.

TIG submits that the Abuse or Molestation Exclusion in the 1991 and 1992 Policies applies on its face to preclude coverage for the Sexual Abuse Claims. However, TIG recognizes that discovery regarding the circumstances of the alleged abuse and a more complete record is necessary before the Court can determine whether any particular claimant was in the “care, custody or control” of USAG at the time of the abuse. USAG’s request for summary judgment declaring that the Abuse or Molestation Exclusion “does not apply unless the claimant was in the care, custody or control of USAG or another insured at the time of abuse” is completely unhelpful as it simply reiterates the language of the exclusion and achieves nothing in terms of identifying the available scope of coverage. TIG could likewise cite other portions of the policies upon which to seek a “declaration.” Therefore, USAG’s request for relief under the 1991 and 1992 policies is not a proper basis for summary judgment and should be denied.

B. If the Claimants Were Not in the Care, Custody or Control of USAG at the Time of Abuse, USAG Has Not Satisfied a Requirement for Coverage Under the Policies

To the extent that USAG is correct that that the “overwhelming majority of Sexual

Abuse Claims allege abuse at locations where the claimants was not within USAG’s ‘care, custody or control,’” such as MSU or Nassar’s home, USAG is not entitled to coverage under the TIG Policies for a separate reason. As a threshold matter, if the claimant was not in the care, custody or control of USAG at the time of the abuse, USAG has a strong defense to liability for such a claim. But even if some liability was attributable to USAG for such a claim, there would be no coverage under the TIG Policies. Each of the TIG Policies, including the

1991 and 1992 Primary Policies, contains language limiting the scope of “covered activities”

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 29 of 32

under the policies to the following (or substantially similar language): “All gymnastics events duly sanctioned by the United States Gymnastics Federation, and all gymnastics activities associated with those events such as clinics, warm-ups, demonstrations, etc., including travel to and from events.” See Ex. 3 at 30; Ex. 4 at MP-000064. This language is clear and unambiguous. Therefore, TIG can have no obligation to provide coverage to USAG for any alleged abuse that took place outside of specific USAG sanctioned events or any activities or travel leading up to or following such events. Due to the undeveloped record before this Court,

TIG does not move for summary judgment on this issue at this time but notes its relevance to

USAG’s claim for coverage under the policies.

CONCLUSION

Under Indiana contract law, the abuse or molestation exclusions in the TIG Policies must be enforced as written to preclude coverage for Sexual Abuse Claims. USAG has not presented any other reasonable interpretation of the exclusions so as to create an ambiguity or to construe them against TIG. This Court cannot rewrite the terms of the TIG Policies to provide coverage that was not bargained for under the contracts. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the Court deny USAG’s motion for partial summary judgment in its entirety and grant TIG’s cross-motion seeking declarations that: 1) the Abuse or Molestation Exclusion in the 2001 Primary Policy applies to Coverage D, Legal Liability to Participants; and 2) the

Molestation Exclusion in the 1996 Excess Policy applies to bodily injury. Alternatively, if the

Court is not inclined to grant TIG’s cross-motion, genuine issues of material fact exist, which require discovery and preclude the entry of summary judgment in favor of USAG.

Dated: September 5, 2019 KENNEDYS CMK LLP

/s/ Heather E. Simpson Heather E. Simpson (admitted pro hac vice) 120 Mountain View Boulevard P.O. Box 650

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 30 of 32

Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 (908) 848-6300 [email protected]

Scott P. Fisher, Attorney No. 26813-49 DREWRY SIMMONS VORNEHM, LLP 736 Hanover Place, Suite 200 Carmel, IN 46032 (317) 580-4848 (317) 580-4855 (Fax) [email protected]

George R. Calhoun (admitted pro hac vice) IFRAH LAW 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 524-4147 [email protected]

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 31 of 32

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 5, 2019, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to the following parties the Court’s Electronic Case Filing System. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.

George M. Plews James P. Moloy Gregory M. Gotwald Bose McKinney & Evans, LLP Tonya J. Bond [email protected] Christopher E. Kozak Plews Shadley Racher & Braun LLP Kevin P. Kamraczewski [email protected] Law Offices of Kevin P. Kamraczewski [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Robert B. Millner Ronald D. Kent Catherine L. Steege Susan M. Walker Melissa M. Root Dentons US LLP Jenner & Block LLP [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Virginia Surety Company, Inc. Counsel for the Debtor USA Gymnastics f/k/a Combined Specialty Insurance Company Jeffrey B. Fecht Wendy D. Brewer Riley Bennett Egloff LLP Phillip A. martin [email protected] Fultz Maddox Dickens PLC [email protected] Cassandra L. Jones [email protected] Walker Wilcox Matousek LLP [email protected] Abigail E. Rocap Counsel for RSUI Indemnity Company Bates Carey LLP [email protected] Counsel for Endurance American Insurance Company Harley K. Means Bruce L. Kamplain Stephen J. Peters Cynthia E. Lasher Kroger Gardis & Regas, LLP Norris Choplin Schroeder, LLP [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Western World Insurance Eric D. Freed Company Jonathan Toren Cozen & O’Connor [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for ACE American Insurance Company f/k/a CIGNA Insurance Company Ginny L. Peterson Hans H. J. Pijls Casey R. Stafford Dinsomre & Stohl, LLP Kightliner & Gray, LLP [email protected]

Case 19-50012 Doc 215 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 32 of 32

[email protected] Counsel for National Casualty [email protected]

Nancy D. Adams Mathilda S. McGee-Tubb Laura Bange Stephens Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo, PC [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. Susan N.K. Gummow Karen M. Dixon Igor Shleypak Michael M. Marick Foran Glennon Palandeck Ponzi & Rudloff Skarzynski Marick & Black LLP PC [email protected] Sgummow.fgppr.com [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for American International Group, Joshua D. Weinberg Inc. & American Home Assurance Katherine M. Hance Company Shipman & Goodwin, LL)P [email protected] Khance&Goodwin.com Counsel for Great American Assurance Company U.S. Trustee Office of U.S. Trustee [email protected]

/s/ Heather E. Simpson Heather E. Simpson

Case 19-50012 Doc 215-1 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 1 of 2

DECLARATION OF HEATHER E. SIMPSON

HEATHER E. SIMPSON, ESQ., declares under penalty of perjury as follows:

1. I am over the age of eighteen and of sound mind.

2. I am a partner of the law firm Kennedys CMK LLP, attorneys for Defendant

TIG Insurance Company (“TIG”) and, in that capacity, I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this matter. I submit this Declaration in opposition to USA Gymnastics’ Case 19-50012 Doc 215-1 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 2 of 2

(“USAG”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against TIG (Dkt. No. 173) and in support of TIG’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 214).

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate copy of the Complaint filed in the lawsuit captioned Rachael Denhollander et al. v. USA Gymnastics, Inc. et al., 18-cv-

01055, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of the Complaint filed in the lawsuit captioned Lindsey Lemke et al. v. USA Gymnastics, Inc. et al., 18-cv-01052, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.

5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and accurate copy of TIG insurance policy number SSP-02719412 issued from August 1, 1991 to August 1, 1992.

6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and accurate copy of TIG insurance policy number SSP35038808 in effect from August 1, 1992 to August 1, 1993.

7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and accurate copy of TIG insurance policy number T7 392176800 in effect from August 1, 2001 to August 1, 2002.

8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and accurate copy of TIG insurance policy number KLB 3921763000 in effect from August 1, 2001 to August 1, 2002.

9. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and accurate copy of TIG insurance policy number KLB 37498134 in effect from September 16, 1996 to August 1, 1997.

10. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and accurate copy of TIG insurance policy number SSP-37393550 in effect from August 1, 1996 to August 1, 1997.

I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

Dated: September 5, 2019 s/ Heather E. Simpson Heather E. Simpson Case 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed 09/05/19 EOD 09/05/19 15:55:43 Pg 1 of 239

EXHIBIT 1 CaseCase 19-500121:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.1 15:55:43 Page Pg 12 ofof 238239

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN - SOUTHERN DIVISION

RACHAEL DENHOLLANDER; Case No. 1:18-cv- JESSICA HOWARD; KAYLEE LORINCZ; OLIVIA COWAN; ALISON OTTEN; Hon. BETHANY BAUMAN; JANE A7 DOE; JANE A9 DOE (MINOR) by Next Friend JANE A10 DOE; AMY LABADIE; ALEXIS MOORE; JANE A20 DOE (MINOR) by Next Friend JANE A21 DOE; VANASIA BRADLEY; LINDSAY WOOLEVER; KATELYN SKRABIS; CHELSEA WILLIAMS; ASHLEY ERICKSON; JANE A31 DOE; JANE A32 DOE; JANE A33 DOE; KASSIE POWELL; TIFFANY DUTTON; JAIME DOSKI; JANE A38 DOE; GWEN ANDERSON; JENELLE MOUL; AMANDA BARTERIAN; TARYN AKEMI LOOK; N.W. (MINOR) by Next Friend R.W.; JANE A50 DOE; JANE A52 DOE (MINOR) by Next Friend JANE A53 DOE; JANE A55 DOE; KATHERINE BLACK; MELISSA VIGOGNE; JANE A59 DOE; ALEXANDRA ROMANO; JANE A64 DOE; JANE A65 DOE; JANE A66 DOE; COMPLAINT AND EMILY GOETZ; MARGARET NICHOLS; JURY DEMAND JANE A71 DOE; J.S. (MINOR) by Next Friend A.S.; E.P. (MINOR) by Next Friend M.P.; JANE A78 DOE; BRITTNEY SCHUMANN; A.B. (MINOR) by Next Friend L.B.; MEGAN HALICEK; STEPHANIE ROBINSON; HANNAH MORROW; KARA JOHNSON; M.J. (MINOR) by Next Friend K.J.; SAMANTHA URSCH; JANE A90 DOE; JANE A91 DOE; JANE A93 DOE; SELENA BRENNAN; JANE A94 DOE (MINOR) by Next Friend JANE A95 DOE; JANE A96 DOE (MINOR) by Next Friend JANE A97 DOE; JANE A98 DOE; JANE A99 DOE; JANE A100 DOE; CHANDLER LYNN; JANE A103 DOE; JANE A104 DOE (MINOR) by Next Friend JANE A105 DOE; JANE A107 DOE; JANE A108 DOE; JANE A109 DOE; KATHRYN MIDDLETON; THE ESTATE OF CHELSEY MARKHAM; JANE A111 DOE; MEGAN GINTER; JANE A112 DOE; JANE A114 DOE; JANE A115 DOE; JANE A116 DOE; JANE A120 DOE; and, JANE A121 DOE;

Plaintiffs, v.

USA GYMNASTICS, INC.; TWISTARS USA, INC. d/b/a GEDDERTS’ TWISTARS GYMNASTICS CLUB USA; JOHN GEDDERT; UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE; LAWRENCE GERARD NASSAR

Defendants.

CaseCase 19-500121:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.2 15:55:43 Page Pg 23 ofof 238239

______/

Stephen R. Drew (P24323) John C. Manly (CA 149080) Adam C. Sturdivant (P72285) Vince W. Finaldi (CA 238279) DREW, COOPER & ANDING Alex E. Cunny (CA 291567) Attorneys for Plaintiffs MANLY, STEWART & FINALDI 80 Ottawa Avenue NW, Suite 200 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 Ph: (616) 454-8300 Irvine, California 92612 E: [email protected] Ph: (949) 252-9990 E: [email protected] E: [email protected] E: [email protected] E: [email protected] ______/

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

A civil action between these parties or other parties arising out of the transaction or occurrence alleged in this complaint has been previously filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, where it was given docket number 1:17-cv-00029 and was assigned to Judge Gordon J. Quist. The action remains pending.

CaseCase 19-500121:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.3 15:55:43 Page Pg 34 ofof 238239

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs, through their attorneys DREW, COOPER & ANDING, and MANLY,

STEWART & FINALDI, allege and state as follows:

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND INTRODUCTION

1. This is a civil action for declaratory, injunctive, equitable, and monetary relief for injuries

sustained by Plaintiffs1 as a result of the acts, conduct, and omissions of Lawrence Nassar,

USA Gymnastics (“USAG”), Twistars USA, Inc. (“Twistars”), John Geddert, and the

United States Olympic Committee (“USOC”) and their respective employees,

representatives, and agents, relating to sexual assault, abuse, molestation, and

nonconsensual sexual touching and harassment by Defendant Nassar against Plaintiffs, all

female, many of whom were minors when the sexual assaults took place.

2. Plaintiffs are or were young athletes participating in a variety of sports including but not

limited to gymnastics.

3. Defendant Nassar came highly recommended to Plaintiffs as a renowned orthopedic sports

medicine physician, purportedly well-respected in the sports medicine community,

specifically in the gymnastics community as the Team Physician for the United States

Gymnastics team.

4. Plaintiffs and their parents had no reason to suspect Defendant Nassar was anything other

than a competent and ethical physician.

5. From approximately 1996 to 2016 Defendant Nassar worked for Michigan State University

1 References to Plaintiffs (plural) and other named Plaintiffs include Plaintiffs in W.D. Mich. Case Nos. Nos. 1:17-cv-29 and 1:18-cv-172 as well as other consoldiated and related cases. Further, Plaintiffs intend to seek Orders of this Court for permission to proceed by pseudonyms for those Plaintiffs seeking to proceed anonymously. 3

CaseCase 19-500121:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.4 15:55:43 Page Pg 45 ofof 238239

in various positions and capacities.

6. From 1986 to approximately 2015 Defendant Nassar also worked for USA Gymnastics in

various positions and capacities.

7. For over 20 years, Defendant Nassar had unfettered access to young female athletes

through the Sports Medicine Clinic at MSU, and through his involvement with USAG,

USOC, and Twistars, who referred athletes to his care.

8. To gain Plaintiffs’ trust, at appointments, Defendant Nassar would give some Plaintiffs

gifts such as t-shirts, pins, flags, leotards, and other items, some with USAG logos and

others without.

9. From 1996 to 1999, under the guise of treatment, Defendant Nassar sexually assaulted,

abused, and molested dozens of Plaintiffs, most of whom were minors, by nonconsensual

vaginal and anal digital penetration and without the use of gloves or lubricant. In some

situations, he also touched and groped their breasts.

10. The Plaintiffs who were sexually assaulted, abused, and molested from 1996 to 1999 were

seeking treatment for athletic injuries to their lower backs, shins, hamstrings, hip, tailbone,

elbow, groin, foot, and knees.

11. While most of the assaults were carried out at MSU, others were carried out at USAG

and/or USOC sponsored events, and Twistars.

12. The ages of the Plaintiffs assaulted during 1996 to 1999 ranged from approximately 6 to

22 years old.

13. In or around 1997 or 1998, Plaintiff Larissa Boyce2 reported to MSU Gymanstics coach

Kathie Klages concerns regarding Defendant Nassar’s conduct and “treatment.”

2 Plaintiff Boyce is a Plaintiff in member case 1:17-cv-222. 4

CaseCase 19-500121:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.5 15:55:43 Page Pg 56 ofof 238239

14. Klages dissuaded Plaintiff Boyce from completing a formal report and warned Boyce that

the report would have serious consequences for both Plaintiff Boyce and Defendant Nassar.

15. Around that same time, Plaintiff Jane B8 Doe3 was questioned by Klages regarding

Nassar’s “treatment” and Plaintiff Jane B8 Doe affirmatively confirmed she had also been

sexually assaulted and abused.

16. Klages told Plaintiff Jane B8 Doe there was no reason to bring up or otherwise report

Defendant Nassar’s conduct.

17. In 1999, Christie Achenbach, a MSU student athlete, reported to trainers and her coach

who were employees of MSU concerns about Defendant Nassar’s conduct and “treatment,”

yet MSU failed to take any action in response to her complaints.

18. In 2000, Tiffany Thomas Lopez (formerly Jane T.T. Doe), another MSU student athlete

reported to trainers concerns about Defendant Nassar’s conduct and “treatment,” yet again

MSU failed to take any action in response to her complaints.

19. Many Plaintiffs were seen alone with only the individual Plaintiff and Defendant Nassar in

the room, without chaperones.

20. At other times, Defendant Nassar would position himself in a manner in which parents or

chaperones in the room could not see his conduct.

21. Because MSU took no action to investigate the 1997/1998, 1999 or 2000 complaints and

took no corrective action, from 2000 to 2016, under the guise of treatment, several dozen

Plaintiffs, many of whom were minors, were also sexually assaulted, abused, and molested

by Defendant Nassar by nonconsensual vaginal and anal digital penetration, nonconsensual

sexual touching of the vaginal area without the use of gloves or lubricant and by

3 Plaintiff Jane B8 Doe is a Plaintiff in member case 1:17-cv-222. 5

CaseCase 19-500121:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.6 15:55:43 Page Pg 67 ofof 238239

nonconsensual touching and groping of their breasts.

22. While some victims were assaulted at MSU, other victims were assaulted at USAG and/or

USOC sanctioned events, Twistars, and Defendant Nassar’s residence.

23. The ages of the Plaintiffs assaulted from 2000 to 2016 ranged from 8 to 29 years old.

24. Additional complaints regarding Defendant Nassar’s conduct surfaced in 2014. Plaintiff

Amanda Thomashow4 reported she had an appointment with Defendant Nassar to address

hip pain and was sexually abused and molested by Defendant Nassar when he cupped her

buttocks, massaged her breast and vaginal area, and became sexually aroused.5

25. Defendant Nassar continued to perform the “procedure” without gloves.

26. Defendant Nassar did not modify the “procedure” to limit skin-to-skin contact.

27. Following the investigation, between approximately 2014 and 2016, again, dozens of

Plaintiffs were sexually assaulted by Defendant Nassar. 6

28. Through his position with MSU, his notoriety, and support by Defendants USOC, USAG

and Twistars, Defendant Nassar used his position of authority as a medical professional to

abuse Plaintiffs without any reasonable supervision by MSU or USAG.

29. Defendant Nassar carried out these acts without fully explaining the “treatment” or

obtaining consent of Plaintiffs or their parents.

30. All of Defendant Nassar’s acts were conducted under the guise of providing medical care

4 Plaintiff Thomashow is a Plaintiff in member case 1:17-cv-254. 5 See, At MSU: Assault, harassment and secrecy. Matt Mencarini, December 15, 2016. Available at, http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/2016/12/15/michigan-state-sexual- assault-harassment-larry-nassar/94993582/. Last accessed Feb. 17, 2018. 6 See, As F.B.I. Took a Year to Pursue the Nassar Case, Dozens Say They Were Molested, Dan Berry, Serge F. Kovaleski, and Juliet Macur, February 3, 2018, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/03/sports/nassar-fbi.html (reporting at least 40 victims were assaulted, abused, and molested between approximately July 2015 and September 2016). Last accessed Feb. 17, 2018. 6

CaseCase 19-500121:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.7 15:55:43 Page Pg 78 ofof 238239

at his office at Michigan State University, at Twistars, or at USAG sanctioned events, some

with USOC presence.

31. The failure to give proper notice or to obtain consent for the purported “treatment” from

Plaintiffs or their parents robbed them of the opportunity to reject the “treatment.”

32. Defendant Nassar used his position of trust and confidence in an abusive manner causing

Plaintiffs to suffer a variety of injuries including shock, humiliation, emotional distress and

related physical manifestations thereof, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, and

loss of enjoyment of life.

33. Plaintiffs have been forced to repeatedly relive the trauma of the sexual assaults.

34. In approximately 2015, Defendant USOC became aware of Defendant Nassar’s sexual

misconduct.

35. Defendant USAG was also made aware of Defendant Nassar’s misconduct as early as

2011, if not earlier.

36. The concerns raised in 2015 were serious enough to warrant a report to the FBI and to ban

Nassar from attending future USAG sanctioned events, yet Defendants USAG and USOC

concealed their knowledge of said misconduct from Defendants MSU, Twistars, other

member gyms and other USAG members, including the Plaintiffs. In summer 2015, USAG

relieved Defendant Nassar of his duties after becoming directly aware of concerns about

his actions, yet USAG failed to inform its member athletes with whom it shared a fiduciary

relationship and Michigan State University of the circumstances regarding his dismissal.

37. In September 2016, a story was published regarding a complaint filed with MSU’s Police

Department titled “Former USA Gymnastics doctor accused of Abuse,” which included

Plaintiff Denhollander’s allegations against Defendant Nassar.

CaseCase 19-500121:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.8 15:55:43 Page Pg 89 ofof 238239

38. Following the September 2016 publication, other victims began coming forward after

recognizing that they were victims of sexual abuse at a time when most of them were

minors.

39. Defendants USAG, USOC, and Twistars’ failure to properly supervise Defendant Nassar

and their negligence in retaining Defendant Nassar was in breach of their fiduciary duties

to Plaintiffs with whom they had a special relationship, and in violation of Michigan

common law.

40. In late November 2016, Defendant Nassar was arrested and charged in Ingham County,

Michigan on three charges of first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a person under 13.7

41. In mid-December 2016, Defendant Nassar was indicted, arrested, and charged in Federal

Court in Grand Rapids, Michigan on charges of possession of child pornography and

receipt/attempted receipt of child pornography.

42. On February 7, 2017, an additional count was added to Defendant Nassar’s Federal charges

for destruction and concealment of records and tangible objects as Defendant Nassar

“caused a third party vendor to permanently delete and destroy all images, records,

documents, and drives contained on the hard drive of a laptop computer, and [Defendant

Nassar] threw in the trash a number of external hard drives” while under investigation for

“his possession of child pornography, his receipt and attempted receipt of child

pornography, and his sexual exploitation and attempted sexual exploitation of children.”8

43. On February 22, 2017, Defendant Nassar was arraigned on 22 counts of first-degree

criminal sexual conduct with a person under 13 years old, and 14 counts of third-degree

7 State of Michigan, Ingham County Circuit Court Case No. 1603031. 8 W.D. Mich. 1:16-cr-242, ECF 16, PageID.88. 8

CaseCase 19-50012 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.9 15:55:43 Page Pg 109 of of 238 239

criminal sexual conduct with a person under the age of 13 years old in Ingham County,

Michigan9 and Eaton County, Michigan.10 Plaintiff Denhollander is among the victims

identified in the most recent state criminal charges.11

44. On July 10, 2017, Defendant Nassar pleaded guilty to the federal charges of child

pornography, receipt/attempted receipt of child pornography, and destruction and

concealment of records and tangible objects.12

45. On November 22, 2017, Defendant Nassar pleaded guilty to 7 counts of first-degree

criminal sexual conduct in Ingham County Michigan.

46. On November 29, 2017, Defendant Nassar pleaded guilty to 3 counts of first degree

criminal sexual conduct in Eaton County Michigan.

47. On December 7, 2017, Defendant Nassar was sentenced to a 720 month (60 year) prison

term for the federal child pornography charges.

48. From, January 16, 2018 to January 24, 2018, a sentencing hearing was held in Ingham

County Michigan for the 7 counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct to which

Defendant Nassar pleaded guilty.

49. Dozens of Plaintiffs and many others provided victim impact statements at the hearing and

9State v. Nassar, Ingham County District Court Case No. 17-00425, see also, http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/Nassar_affidavit_Ingham_County_charges_Feb._2017_ 552531_7.pdf 10State v. Nassar, Eaton County District Court Case No. 17-0318, see also, http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/Nassar_affidavit_Eaton_County_charges_Feb._2017_5 52536_7.pdf 11 Although the sexual assault victims are not identified by name in the affidavits hyperlinked above, Plaintiff Denhollander has publicly identified herself as one of the victims. See, “Victim C” in Michigan State Dr. Larry Nassar case glad to see criminal charges, available at http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/02/victim_c_in_michigan_state_dr.html, last accessed Feb. 17, 2018. 12 1:16-cr-00242, Page ID.114, 119. 9

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.10 15:55:43 Page Pg 1110 ofof 239238

some of the Plaintiffs who were seeking to proceed anonymously in this litigation chose to

publicly identify themselves at the sentencing hearing.

50. On January 24, 2018, Defendant Nassar was sentenced to a 40 to 175 year prison term for

the Ingham County charges.

51. From January 31, 2018 to February 5, 2018, a sentencing hearing was held in Eaton County

Michigan for the 3 counts of first degree criminal sexual conduct to which Defendant

Nassar pleaded guilty.

52. Again, dozens of Plaintiffs and many others provided victim impact statements at the

hearing and some of the Plaintiffs who were seeking to proceed anonymously in this

litigation chose to publicly identify themselves at the sentencing hearing.

53. On February 5, 2018, Defendant Nassar was sentenced to a 40 to 125 year prison term for

the Eaton County charges.

54. Ultimately the acts, conduct, and omissions of Defendants USAG, Twistars, and USOC,

and their policies, customs, and practices with respect to investigating sexual assault

allegations severely compromised the safety and health of Plaintiffs and an unknown

number of individuals, and have resulted in repeated instances of sexual assault, abuse, and

molestation of Plaintiffs by Defendant Nassar, which has been devastating for Plaintiffs

and their families.

55. This action arises from Defendants’ blatant disregard for Plaintiffs’ federal and state rights,

and Defendants’ deliberately indifferent and unreasonable response to physician-on-

patient/physician-on-student sexual assault, abuse, and molestation.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

56. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.11 15:55:43 Page Pg 1211 ofof 239238

paragraphs.

57. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the USOC pursuant to 36 U.S.C.A.

§220505(b)(9).

58. This is also an action to redress the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ federal rights under 18 U.S.C.

§§2255, 2423(b), and 2432(c) which prohibits U.S. citizens from traveling in foreign

commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct with another person.

59. Subject matter jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C. §1331 which gives district courts

jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the

United States.

60. Subject matter jurisdiction is also founded upon 28 U.S.C. §1343 which gives district

courts original jurisdiction over any civil actions authorized by law to be brought by any

person to redress the deprivation, under color of any State Law, statute, ordinance,

regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution

of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of

all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States, and any civil action to recover

damages or to secure equitable relief under any Act of Congress providing for the

protection of civil rights.

61. Plaintiffs further invoke the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1367(a) to hear and decide claims arising under state law that are so related to the claims

within the original jurisdiction of this Court that they form part of the same case or

controversy.

62. The claims are cognizable under Michigan Law.

63. The vast majority of events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in Ingham and Eaton

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.12 15:55:43 Page Pg 1312 ofof 239238

Counties, Michigan which sit in the Southern Division of the Western District of Michigan.

64. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(2), in that this is the judicial district in which the events

giving rise to the claim occurred.

III. PARTIES AND KEY INDIVIDUALS

65. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

66. With the exception of certain Plaintiffs who have agreed to be publicly identified, the

names of the Plaintiffs have been withheld from this Complaint to protect their identities

as some are currently minor children, or were minor children at the time the sexual abuse

occurred.13

67. Plaintiff Rachael Denhollander is a female and is a resident of Kentucky, but resided in

Michigan at all relevant times as indicated below. Plaintiff Denhollander was a minor at

the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by Defendant Nassar.

68. Plaintiff Jessica Howard is an adult female and is a resident of New York. Plaintiff Howard

was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by Defendant

Nassar.

69. Plaintiff Kaylee Lorincz (formerly Jane A1 Doe) is an adult female and is a resident of

Michigan. Plaintiff Kaylee Lorincz was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted,

abused, and molested by Defendant Nassar.

70. Plaintiff Olivia Cowan (formerly Jane A3 Doe) is an adult female and is a resident of

13 Plaintiffs will seek an Order of the Court regarding disclosure of Plaintiffs’ identities and all conditions for disclosure. 12

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.13 15:55:43 Page Pg 1413 ofof 239238

Illinois, but resided in Michigan at all relevant times as indicated below. Plaintiff Olivia

Cowan was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by

Defendant Nassar.

71. Plaintiff Alison Otten (formerly Jane A4 Doe/Alison Chauvette) is an adult female and is

a resident of Michigan. Plaintiff Alison Otten was a minor at the times she was sexually

assaulted, abused, and molested by Defendant Nassar.

72. Plaintiff Bethany Bauman (formerly Jane A6 Doe) is an adult female and is a resident of

South Carolina, but resided in Michigan at all relevant times as indicated below. Plaintiff

Bethany Bauman was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and

molested by Defendant Nassar.

73. Plaintiff Jane A7 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of Arizona, but resided in

Michigan at all relevant times as indicated below. Plaintiff Jane A7 Doe was a minor at the

times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by Defendant Nassar.

74. Plaintiff Amy Labadie (formerly Jane A8 Doe) is an adult female and is a resident of

Michigan. Plaintiff Amy Labadie was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted,

abused, and molested by Defendant Nassar.

75. Plaintiff Jane A9 Doe is a minor female and is a resident of Michigan.

76. Plaintiff Jane A10 Doe is an adult female, the mother of Plaintiff Jane A9 Doe, and is a

resident of Michigan.

77. Plaintiff Alexis Moore (Jane A18 Doe) is an adult female and is a resident of Michigan.

Plaintiff Alexis Moore was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and

molested by Defendant Nassar.

78. Plaintiff Jane A20 Doe is a minor female and is a resident of Michigan.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.14 15:55:43 Page Pg 1514 ofof 239238

79. Plaintiff Jane A21 Doe is an adult female, the mother of Plaintiff Jane A20 Doe, and a

resident of Michigan.

80. Plaintiff Vanasia Bradley (formerly Jane A23 Doe) is an adult female and is a resident of

Michigan. Plaintiff Vanasia Bradley was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted,

abused, and molested by Defendant Nassar

81. Plaintiff Lindsay Woolever (formerly Jane A24 Doe) is an adult female and is a resident

of Michigan. Plaintiff Lindsay Woolever was a minor at the times she was sexually

assaulted, abused, and molested by Defendant Nassar.

82. Plaintiff Katelyn Skrabis (formerly Jane A25 Doe) is an adult female and is a resident of

Michigan. Plaintiff Katelyn Skrabis was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted,

abused, and molested by Defendant Nassar.

83. Plaintiff Chelsea Williams (formerly Jane A26 Doe) is an adult female and is a resident of

Michigan. Plaintiff Chelsea Williams was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted,

abused, and molested by Defendant Nassar.

84. Plaintiff Ashley Erickson (formerly Jane A28 Doe) is an adult female and is a resident of

Michigan. Plaintiff Ashley Erickson was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted,

abused, and molested by Defendant Nassar.

85. Plaintiff Jane A31 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of Florida but resided in

Michigan at all relevant times indicated below.

86. Plaintiff Jane A32 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of Michigan. Plaintiff Jane A32

Doe was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by

Defendant Nassar.

87. Plaintiff Jane A33 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of Michigan. Plaintiff Jane A33

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.15 15:55:43 Page Pg 1615 ofof 239238

Doe was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by

Defendant Nassar.

88. Plaintiff Kassie Powell (formerly Jane A34 Doe) is an adult female and is a resident of

Tennessee but resided in Michigan at all relevant times indicated below. Plaintiff Kassie

Powell was a minor during a portion of the time she was sexually assaulted, abused, and

molested by Defendant Nassar.

89. Plaintiff Tiffany Dutton (formerly Jane A35 Doe) is an adult female and is a resident of

Michigan. Plaintiff Tiffany Dutton was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted,

abused, and molested by Defendant Nassar.

90. Plaintiff Jaime Doski (formerly Jane A36 Doe) is an adult female and is a resident of

Michigan. Plaintiff Jaime Doski was a minor during a portion of the time she was sexually

assaulted, abused, and molested by Defendant Nassar.

91. Plaintiff Jane A38 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of Michigan. Plaintiff Jane A38

Doe was a minor during a portion of the time she was sexually assaulted, abused, and

molested by Defendant Nassar.

92. Plaintiff Gwen Anderson (formerly Jane A40 Doe) is an adult female and is a resident of

Michigan. Plaintiff Gwen Anderson was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted,

abused, and molested by Defendant Nassar.

93. Plaintiff Jenelle Moul (formerly Jane A41 Doe) is an adult female and is a resident of

Michigan.

94. Plaintiff Amanda Barterian (formerly Jane A44 Doe) is an adult female and is a resident of

Michigan. Plaintiff Amanda Barterian was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted,

abused, and molested by Defendant Nassar.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.16 15:55:43 Page Pg 1716 ofof 239238

95. Plaintiff Taryn Akemi Look (formerly Jane A46 Doe) is an adult female and is a resident

of California but resided in Michigan at all relevant times indicated below. Plaintiff Taryn

Akemi Look was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by

Defendant Nassar.

96. Plaintiff N.W. (minor) (formerly Jane A47 Doe) is a minor female and is a resident of

Michigan.

97. Plaintiff R.W. (formerly Jane A48 Doe) is an adult female, the mother of Plaintiff N.W.

(minor), and a resident of Michigan.

98. Plaintiff Jane A50 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of Michigan. Plaintiff Jane A50

Doe was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by

Defendant Nassar.

99. Plaintiff Jane A52 Doe is a minor female and is a resident of Michigan.

100. Plaintiff Jane A53 Doe is an adult female, the mother of Plaintiff Jane A52 Doe, and a

resident of Michigan.

101. Plaintiff Jane A55 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of Michigan. Plaintiff Jane A55

Doe was a minor during some of the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and

molested by Defendant Nassar.

102. Plaintiff Katherine Black (formerly Jane A57 Doe) is an adult female and is a resident of

Michigan. Plaintiff Katherine Black was a minor during some of the times she was sexually

assaulted, abused, and molested by Defendant Nassar.

103. Plaintiff Melissa Vigogne (formerly Jane A58 Doe) is an adult female and is a resident of

France but resided in Florida at all relevant times indicated below.

104. Plaintiff Jane A59 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of Michigan. Plaintiff Jane A59

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.17 15:55:43 Page Pg 1817 ofof 239238

Doe was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by

Defendant Nassar.

105. Plaintiff Alexandra Romano (formerly Jane A60 Doe) is an adult female and is a resident

of Michigan. Plaintiff Alexandra Romano was a minor at the times she was sexually

assaulted, abused, and molested by Defendant Nassar.

106. Plaintiff Jane A64 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of New Jersey. Plaintiff Jane

A64 Doe was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by

Defendant Nassar.

107. Plaintiff Jane A65 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of Texas. Plaintiff Jane A65 Doe

was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by Defendant

Nassar.

108. Plaintiff Jane A66 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of Arizona. Plaintiff Jane A66

Doe was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by

Defendant Nassar.

109. Plaintiff Emily Goetz (formerly Jane A67 Doe) is an adult female and is a resident of New

York. Plaintiff Emily Goetz was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused,

and molested by Defendant Nassar.

110. Plaintiff Margaret Nichols (formerly Jane A68 Doe) is an adult female and is a resident of

Minnesota. Plaintiff Margaret Nichols was a minor at the time she was sexually assaulted,

abused, and molested by Defendant Nassar.

111. Plaintiff Jane A71 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of Michigan. Plaintiff A71 Doe

was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by Defendant

Nassar.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.18 15:55:43 Page Pg 1918 ofof 239238

112. J.S. (minor) (formerly Jane A72 Doe) is a minor female and is a resident of Michigan.

113. Plaintiff A.S. (formerly Jane A73 Doe) is an adult female, the mother of Plaintiff J.S.

(minor), and a resident of Michigan.

114. Plaintiff E.P. (minor) (formerly Jane A75 Doe) is a minor female and is a resident of

Michigan.

115. Plaintiff M.P. (formerly Jane A76 Doe) is an adult female, the mother of Plaintiff E.P.

(minor) and a resident of Michigan.

116. Plaintiff Jane A78 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of Florida. Plaintiff Jane A78

Doe was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by

Defendant Nassar.

117. Plaintiff Brittney Schumann (formerly Jane A80 Doe) is an adult female and is a resident

of Texas. Plaintiff Brittney Schumann was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted,

abused, and molested by Defendant Nassar.

118. Plaintiff A.B. (minor) (formerly Jane A82 Doe) is a minor female and is a resident of

Michigan.

119. Plaintiff L.B. (formerly Jane A83 Doe) is an adult female, the mother of Plaintiff A.B.

(minor), and a resident of Michigan.

120. Plaintiff Megan Halicek (formerly Jane A85 Doe) is an adult female and is a resident of

California. Plaintiff Megan Halicek was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted,

abused, and molested by Defendant Nassar.

121. Plaintiff Stephanie Robinson (formerly Jane A86 Doe) is an adult female and is a resident

of Michigan. Plaintiff Stephanie Robinson was a minor at the times she was sexually

assaulted, abused, and molested by Defendant Nassar.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.19 15:55:43 Page Pg 2019 ofof 239238

122. Plaintiff Hannah Morrow is an adult female and is a resident of Illinois. Plaintiff was a

minor at the times she was sexually abused, assaulted and molested by Defendant Nassar.

123. Plaintiff Kara Johnson is an adult female and is a resident of Michigan. Plaintiff Kara

Johnson was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by

Defendant Nassar.

124. Plaintiff M.J. (minor) is a minor female and is a resident of Michigan.

125. Plaintiff K.J. is an adult female, the mother of Plaintiff M.J. and a resident of Michigan.

126. Plaintiff Samantha Ursch is an adult female and is a resident of Florida.

127. Plaintiff Jane A90 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of Illinois. Plaintiff Jane A90

Doe was a minor during a portion of the time she was sexually assaulted, abused, and

molested by Defendant Nassar.

128. Plaintiff Jane A91 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of Arizona. Plaintiff Jane A91

Doe was a minor during a portion of the time she was sexually assaulted, abused, and

molested by Defendant Nassar.

129. Plaintiff Jane A93 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of North Carolina. Plaintiff Jane

A93 Doe was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by

Defendant Nassar.

130. Plaintiff Selena Brennan is an adult female and a resident of Michigan. Plaintiff Selena

Brennan was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by

Defendant Nassar.

131. Plaintiff Jane A94 Doe is a minor female and is a resident of Michigan.

132. Plaintiff Jane A95 Doe is an adult female, the mother of Plaintiff Jane A94 Doe, and a

resident of Michigan.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.20 15:55:43 Page Pg 2120 ofof 239238

133. Plaintiff Jane A96 Doe is a minor female and is a resident of Michigan.

134. Plaintiff Jane A97 Doe is an adult female, the mother of Plaintiff Jane A96 Doe, and a

resident of Michigan.

135. Plaintiff Jane A98 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of California. Plaintiff Jane A98

Doe was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by

Defendant Nassar.

136. Plaintiff Jane A99 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of Ohio. Plaintiff Jane A99 Doe

was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused and molested by Defendant

Nassar.

137. Plaintiff Jane A100 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of Michigan. Plaintiff Jane

A100 Doe was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by

Defendant Nassar.

138. Plaintiff Chandler Lynn is an adult female and is a resident of Michigan. Plaintiff Chandler

Lynn was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by

Defendant Nassar.

139. Plaintiff Jane A103 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of Michigan. Plaintiff Jane

A103 Doe was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by

Defendant Nassar.

140. Plaintiff Jane A104 Doe is a minor female and is a resident of Michigan.

141. Plaintiff Jane A105 Doe is an adult female, the mother of Plaintiff Jane A104 Doe, and a

resident of Michigan.

142. Plaintiff Jane A107 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of Michigan. Plaintiff Jane

A107 Doe was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.21 15:55:43 Page Pg 2221 ofof 239238

Defendant Nassar.

143. Plaintiff Jane A108 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of California. Plaintiff Jane

A108 Doe was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by

Defendant Nassar.

144. Plaintiff Jane A109 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of Massachusetts. Plaintiff Jane

A109 Doe was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by

Defendant Nassar.

145. Plaintiff Kathryn Middleton is an adult female and is a resident of Michigan. Plaintiff

Kathryn Middleton was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and

molested by Defendant Nassar.

146. The Estate of Chelsey Markham proceeds by Personal Representative Donna Markham.

Chelsey Markham was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and

molested by Defendant Nassar.

147. Plaintiff Jane A111 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of Michigan. Plaintiff Jane

A111 Doe was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by

Defendant Nassar.

148. Plaintiff Megan Ginter is an adult female and is a resident of Ohio. Plaintiff Megan Ginter

was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by Defendant

Nassar.

149. Plaintiff Jane A112 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of Texas.

150. Plaintiff Jane A114 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of Alabama. Plaintiff Jane

A114 Doe was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by

Defendant Nassar.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.22 15:55:43 Page Pg 2322 ofof 239238

151. Plaintiff Jane A115 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of Michigan.

152. Plaintiff Jane A116 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of Michigan. Plaintiff Jane

A116 Doe was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by

Defendant Nassar.

153. Plaintiff Jane A120 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of California. Plaintiff Jane

A120 Doe was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by

Defendant Nassar.

154. Plaintiff Jane A121 Doe is an adult female and is a resident of Texas. Plaintiff Jane A121

Doe was a minor at the times she was sexually assaulted, abused, and molested by

Defendant Nassar.

155. Michigan State University (hereinafter, “MSU”) was at all relevant times and continues to

be a public university organized and existing under the laws of the state of Michigan.

156. Michigan State University receives federal financial assistance and is therefore subject to

Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §1681(a).

157. The Board of Trustees of Michigan State University (hereinafter, “MSU Trustees”) is the

governing body for Michigan State University.

158. MSU and MSU Trustees are sometimes collectively referred to as MSU below.

159. Lou Anna K. Simon is the immediate past President of MSU, appointed in approximately

January 2005. Prior to her appointment as President, Ms. Simon held several administrative

roles including assistant provost for general academic administration, associate provost,

and provost and vice president for academic affairs during her career with MSU.

160. M. Peter McPherson is a past President of MSU, and served as President from

approximately 1993 – 2004.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.23 15:55:43 Page Pg 2423 ofof 239238

161. Mark Hollis is the immediate past Athletic Director of MSU.

162. William D. Strampel, D.O. was the Dean of the College of Osteopathic Medicine at

Michigan State University and served as Dean beginning in approximately April 2002 and

as Acting Dean between December 2001 and April 2002. Strampel resigned as Dean in or

around December 2017.

163. Jeffrey R. Kovan, D.O. is or was the Director of Division of Sports Medicine at Michigan

State University.

164. Douglas Dietzel, D.O. is or was the Clinical Director of MSU Sports Medicine serving in

that capacity since approximately 2004 and has also served as Team Orthopedic Surgeon

for MSU Department of Intercollegiate Athletics.

165. Gary Stollak, Ph.D., is or was a Michigan State University clinical psychologist and

Professor of Psychology.

166. Kathie Klages is or was the Head Coach of MSU’s Gymnastics Team/Program and

conducted classes and programs for children and young adults who were not members of

the MSU Gymnastics Team/Program.

167. Destiny Teachnor-Hauk is or was an athletic trainer for MSU for various sports including

but not limited to softball, track and field, gymnastics, rowing, and volleyball.

168. MSU, MSU Trustees, Strampel, Kovan, Dietzel, Stollak, Klages, Teachnor-Hauk, and

Nassar are hereinafter collectively referred to as MSU.

169. Lianna Hadden is or was a trainer for MSU for various sports including, but not limited to

softball, track and field, gymnastics, rowing, and volleyball.

170. Kelli Bert is or was the Head Coach of MSU’s Track and Field Team/Program.

171. Brooke Lemmen, D.O. is or was a practicing physician with MSU’s Sports Medicine Clinic

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.24 15:55:43 Page Pg 2524 ofof 239238

from approximately 2010 to 2017.

172. Defendant United States of America Gymnastics (hereinafter “Defendant USAG”) was and

continues to be an organization incorporated in Indiana, authorized to conduct business and

conducting business throughout the United States, including but not limited to Michigan.

173. Kerry Perry is the current president and Chief Executive Officer of Defendant USAG who

was responsible for the overall management and strategic planning of Defendant USAG.

174. Steve Penny is the immediate past president and Chief Executive Officer of Defendant

USAG (named in approximately April 2005), who was responsible for the overall

management and strategic planning of Defendant USAG.

175. Robert Colarossi is the past president of Defendant USAG and held the position from

approximately 1998 to 2005, and during that time was responsible for the overall

management and strategic planning of Defendant USAG.

176. Paul Parilla is the immediate past Chairman of the Board of Directors of Defendant USAG.

177. Bela Karolyi is a former Romanian gymnastics coach who defected to the United States in

the early 1980’s, previously served as National Team Coordinator for Defendant USAG,

and trained elite level USAG member gymnasts at a facility operated in the State of Texas.

178. Martha Karolyi, the wife of Bela Karolyi who also defected to the United States in the early

1980’s, assisted in the operation, management, control, and supervision of the facility

operated in the State of Texas where she and her husband trained elite level USAG member

gymnasts.

179. Martha Karolyi is a former National Team Coordinator for Defendant USAG.

180. Valeri Liukin is the immediate past National Team Coordinator for the USAG Women’s

Gymnastics Team.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.25 15:55:43 Page Pg 2625 ofof 239238

181. Rhonda Faehn is the former senior vice-president and [other title] for Defendant USAG.

182. The Karolyi Ranch as referenced herein refers to the facility located in Huntsville, Texas

also known as the USAG National Team Training Center and/or any of the following

business entities, believed to be incorporated in the state of Texas: Karolyi Training Camps,

LLC, Karolyi World Gymnastics, Inc., and/or Karolyi’s Elite.

183. The United States Olympic Committee (“USOC”) is a federally chartered corporation and

serves as the National Olympic Committee for the United States of America.

184. The USOC has its principal place of business in the State of Colorado and is headquartered

in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

185. The USOC was established under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act (36

U.S.C. §220501, et seq., formerly the Amateur Sports Act of 1978) provides for the

National Governing Bodies for each Olympic Sport, such as USAG.

186. Pursuant to 36 U.S.C.A. §220505(b)(9), the USOC may “sue and be sued” in any federal

district court.

187. According to its Congressional charter, the USOC’s purpose is “to provide swift resolution

of conflicts and disputes involving amateur athletes, national governing bodies, and

amateur sports organizations, and protect the opportunity of any amateur athlete, coach,

trainer, manager, administrator, or official to participate in amateur athletic competition.”

36 U.S.C. §220503.

188. The USOC has designated Defendant USAG as the National Governing Body for the

Olympic sport of Gymnastics in the United States of America.

189. Sarah Hirshland is the current CEO for the USOC.

190. Prior to Ms. Hirshland’s appointment, Susanne Lyons served as acting CEO.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.26 15:55:43 Page Pg 2726 ofof 239238

191. Scott Blackmun is the immediate former CEO for the USOC.

192. Larry Probst is the Chairman of the Board of Directors for the USOC.

193. Defendant Twistars USA, Inc. d/b/a Geddert’s Twistars Gymnastics Club USA

(hereinafter, “Defendant Twistars”) was and continues to be an organization incorporated

in Michigan.

194. Defendant John Geddert is or was the owner and operator of Twistars USA, Inc. d/b/a

Geddert’s Twistars Gymnastics Club USA. Defendant Geddert also served on the USAG

Junior Olympic Program Committee for over 20 years, served as a USAG coach from as

early as 1995, and as the USA World and 2012 Olympic Women’s Gymnastics Team Head

Coach for Defendants USAG and USOC.14

195. Defendant Lawrence “Larry” Nassar, was a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and was a

resident of Michigan at all relevant times. Upon information and belief, Defendant Nassar

is an inmate in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

IV. COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

196. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

197. At all relevant times, Defendant Nassar maintained an office at MSU in East Lansing,

Michigan.

198. At all relevant times Defendants Nassar and Geddert were acting in the scope of their

employment or agency with Defendants USAG, USOC, and Twistars.

199. Defendant Nassar graduated from Michigan State University with a Doctor of Osteopathic

Medicine degree in approximately 1993.

14 http://region5.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/John-Geddert-Biography.pdf. 26

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.27 15:55:43 Page Pg 2827 ofof 239238

200. Defendant Nassar was employed by and/or an agent of Defendant USAG from

approximately 1986 to 2015, serving in various positions including but not limited to:

a. Certified Athletic Trainer;

b. Osteopathic Physician;

c. National Medical Director;

d. National Team Physician, USA Gymnastics;

e. National Team Physician, USA Gymnastics Women’s Artistic Gymnastics

National Team.

201. As an employee and/or agent of Defendant USAG, Defendant Nassar served in the

positions listed above at the 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2012 Summer Olympic Games,

regularly at the Karolyi Ranch, at USAG sponsored and sanctioned competitions in the

U.S. and internationally, and while he treated USAG members at his office at MSU and at

Twistars.

202. Defendant Nassar was employed by MSU from approximately 1996 to 2016 in various

positions including but not limited to:

a. Assistant and/or Associate Professor, MSU’s Division of Sports Medicine,

Department of Radiology, College of Osteopathic Medicine;

b. Team Physician, MSU’s Men’s and Women’s Gymnastics Team;

c. Team Physician, MSU’s Men’s and Women’s Track and Field Teams;

d. Team Physician, MSU’s Men’s and Women’s Crew Team;

e. Team Physician, MSU’s Intercollegiate Athletics;

f. Medical Consultant, MSU’s Wharton Center for the Performing Arts;

g. Advisor, Student Osteopathic Association of Sports Medicine.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.28 15:55:43 Page Pg 2928 ofof 239238

203. As an Assistant and/or Associate Professor for MSU Division of Sports Medicine,

Defendant Nassar provided medical services for MSU’s Sports Medicine Clinic.

204. As part of Defendant Nassar’s employment and contractual duties with MSU, Defendant

Nassar was responsible for spending between 50 to 70% of his time engaged in “Outreach”

and/or “Public Services.”

205. A part of Defendant Nassar’s outreach included providing medical treatment to athletes

affiliated with Defendants USAG, USOC, and Twistars as well as other organizations such

as Holt High School.

206. In order to participate in USAG sanctioned events, it is necessary to be a USAG member.

207. To obtain membership with Defendant USAG, an individual must pay dues.

208. Similarly, in order for a gymnastics club to be considered a USAG member club, the

gymnastics club must also pay dues, and if the member club seeks to hold a USAG

sanctioned event at the club, the club must pay a fee.

209. All those who seek to coach, judge, or participate in USAG sanctioned events must also

pay a membership fee.

210. The exchange of money for membership creates a fiduciary relationship and duty between

Defendant USAG, their members/athletes, coaches, judges, and their clubs.

211. Defendant USAG regularly recommended Defendant Nassar to its members as a reputable

physician.

212. Defendant Twistars is a gymnastics facility with which Defendant Nassar affiliated from

its inception in or around 1996.

213. Defendant John Geddert, owner and operator of Twistars USA, Inc. d/b/a Geddert’s

Twistars Gymnastics Club USA served as the USA World and 2012 Olympic Women’s

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.29 15:55:43 Page Pg 3029 ofof 239238

Gymnastics Team Head Coach for Defendants USAG and USOC.

214. Defendant Twistars is a USAG member club and ostensible agent of Defendants USAG

and USOC.

215. Defendant Twistars required its gymnasts, especially those with aspirations of competing,

to become USAG members and pay membership fees to Defendant USAG.

216. Defendant Geddert regularly recommended Defendant Nassar to members of Defendant

Twistars as a reputable physician.

217. Plaintiffs relied on the recommendations of Defendants Geddert and USAG and

continually sought treatment from Defendant Nassar.

218. Defendant Nassar was a representative or agent of Twistars who performed treatment at

their facilities on a regular basis.

219. Plaintiffs had a physician-patient special relationship with Defendant Nassar when he

treated them at Twistars in his capacity as a representative or agent of Twistars.

220. Defendant Nassar regularly treated Plaintiffs who were members of Defendant Twistars at

their facility.

221. The relationship between Defendants USAG, USOC, Twistars, Geddert, and Nassar was

symbiotic in nature, in that the organizations, Geddert, and Nassar enjoyed financial

benefits one from another.

222. Defendant Nassar received financial benefits from his relationship with Defendants USAG,

Twistars, Geddert and the USOC including but not limited to increased patients at the MSU

Sports Medicine clinic, and national and international recognition, fame, and prestige.

223. Defendants USAG and USOC received financial benefits from their relationship with

Defendants Twistars, Geddert, and Nassar, and also MSU, including but not limited to

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.30 15:55:43 Page Pg 3130 ofof 239238

increased membership in its organization, increased or additional membership fees, and

national and international recognition, fame, and prestige.

224. Defendants Geddert and Twistars received financial benefits from its relationship with

Defendants USAG and Nassar including but not limited to increased membership in the

gym, membership fees, and national and international fame, and prestige.

225. For a period of time, Defendant Twistars displayed a photo of Defendant Nassar at its

facility.

226. As an agent of Defendant Twistars, Defendant Nassar regularly provided services and

treatment to Defendant Twistars’ members and Defendant USAG’s members on Defendant

Twistars’ premises.

227. Plaintiffs had a special and fiduciary relationship with Defendants Twistars and Geddert

by virtue of being dues paying members with Defendant Twistars.

228. Plaintiffs were often under the direct supervision and control of Twistars or its agents and

were in fact in loco parentis with Twistars while competing, training, and receiving

“treatment” from Defendant Nassar.

229. Oftentimes while training and while competing for Defendants Twistars and Geddert at

Twistars events (also USAG sanctioned events) Plaintiffs were away from their parents

and under the complete care, custody, and control of Defendants Twistars and Geddert.

230. As a physician of Osteopathic Medicine, Defendant Nassar’s medical care and treatment

should have consisted largely of osteopathic adjustments and kinesiology treatment to

patients, including students and student-athletes of MSU.

231. Defendant Nassar is not and has never been a medical doctor of obstetrics or gynecology.

232. Defendant Nassar is not and has never been trained or certified as a pelvic floor therapist.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.31 15:55:43 Page Pg 3231 ofof 239238

233. While employed by Defendant MSU, USAG, and Twistars, and as an agent of Defendant

USOC Defendant Nassar practiced medicine at MSU’s Sports Medicine Clinic, a facility

at MSU.

234. To gain Plaintiffs’ trust, at appointments, Defendant Nassar would give some Plaintiffs

gifts such as t-shirts, pins, flags, leotards, and other items, some with USAG logos and

others without.

235. Additionally, Defendant Nassar would also see many Plaintiffs outside of normal business

hours at his office at MSU and sometimes at his residence to gain their trust.

236. In many cases, Defendant Nassar did not have Plaintiffs use the main entrance and exit at

MSU’s Sports Medicine Clinic for appointments with Defendant Nassar.

237. In other situations, Defendant Nassar did not have Plaintiffs check in or check out with

staff of MSU’s Sports Medicine Clinic for appointments with Defendant Nassar.

238. Some Plaintiffs were told by Defendant Nassar, when calling to schedule an appointment,

in order to be seen more quickly, to tell MSU’s Sports Medicine Clinic staff that they were

suffering from a back injury even though they weren’t—a practice which gave Defendant

Nassar an opportunity to examine Plaintiffs in a way that would leave them more

vulnerable and susceptible to sexual assault and abuse.

239. Defendant Nassar would regularly and frequently see Plaintiffs at MSU’s Sports Medicine

Clinic, many of whom were minors, without the presence of a chaperone (e.g., parent,

guardian, resident, nurse, etc.).

240. Defendant Nassar would communicate with Plaintiffs, many of whom were minors, via

text message or social media, often times without including their parents in the

communication.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.32 15:55:43 Page Pg 3332 ofof 239238

241. Defendants USOC, USAG, Twistars and Geddert never trained, educated, or warned

Plaintiffs, who were Defendants’ patients and members (respectively), that the actions

described above were warning signs for sexual abuse and sexual assault.

242. Because of the special and fiduciary relationship shared between Defendants USAG,

USOC, Twistars, and Geddert and Plaintiffs, each Defendant had a legal duty to exercise

reasonable care toward Plaintiffs, who were their patients and members (respectively).

243. Defendants USAG, USOC, Twistars, and Geddert had a duty to exercise reasonable care

in supervising Defendant Nassar while he was their employee or agent.

244. Collectively, the Defendants breached the duties they owed Plaintiffs and ultimately failed

to exercise reasonable care, leaving them vulnerable to be sexually abused, assaulted, and

molested by Defendant Nassar.

245. During his employment, agency, and representation with Defendants USAG, USOC, and

Twistars, Defendant Nassar sexually assaulted, abused, and molested Plaintiffs by

engaging in nonconsensual sexual touching, assault, and harassment including but not

limited to digital vaginal and anal penetration.

246. The State of Michigan’s Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Occupational

Health Standards regarding Bloodborne Infectious Diseases mandates use of gloves when

exposed to potentially infectious material, including vaginal secretions.15

247. To the best of Plaintiffs’ knowledge, neither USOC nor Defendants USAG, or Twistars

had or enforced a policy which required their patients and members to avoid being seen for

treatment at a physician’s residence.

15 See, Michigan Administrative Code, R. 325.70001, et seq., Available at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CIS_WSH_part554_35632_7.pdf. Last accessed, January 5, 2017. 32

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.33 15:55:43 Page Pg 3433 ofof 239238

248. To the best of Plaintiffs’ knowledge, neither USOC, nor Defendants USAG, or Twistars

had or enforced a policy which required their patients and members to have the presence

of a chaperone (e.g., parent, guardian, resident, nurse, etc.) when treating in a private or

sensitive area.

249. To the best of Plaintiffs’ knowledge, neither USOC, nor Defendants USAG, or Twistars

had or enforced a policy which required their patients not to communicate with physicians

via text message or social media in order to schedule appointments.

250. Collectively, Defendants’ failures as described above left Plaintiffs vulnerable and

susceptible to sexual assaulted and abuse.

251. In or around 1997 or 1998, Plaintiff Larissa Boyce16 reported to Klages concerns regarding

Defendant Nassar’s conduct and “treatment.”

252. Klages dissuaded Plaintiff Boyce from completing a formal report and warned Boyce that

the report would have serious consequences for both Plaintiff Boyce and Defendant Nassar.

253. Around that same time, Plaintiff Jane B8 Doe17 was questioned by Klages regarding

Nassar’s “treatment” and Plaintiff Jane B8 Doe affirmatively confirmed she had also been

assaulted and abused.

254. Klages told Plaintiff Jane B8 Doe there was no reason to bring up or otherwise report

Defendant Nassar’s conduct.

255. In or around 1998, a parent of a gymnast at Defendant Twistars’ facility complained to

Defendant Geddert regarding Defendant Nassar’s conduct, yet the concerns and allegations

went unaddressed.

16 Plaintiff Boyce is a Plaintiff in member case 1:17-cv-222. 17 Plaintiff Jane B8 Doe is a Plaintiff in member case 1:17-cv-222. 33

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.34 15:55:43 Page Pg 3534 ofof 239238

256. Also in or around 1998, Jane A71 Doe complained to a coach at Defendant Twistars’

facility regarding Defendant Nassar’s conduct, yet the concerns and allegations went

unaddressed.

257. Defendant Geddert received knowledge of these complaints in his capacity as an employee

or agent of USAG as well as his capacity as owner and operator of a USAG member gym,

Twistars.

258. In or around 1999 MSU was also put on notice of Defendant Nassar’s conduct by Christie

Achenbach,18 a MSU student athlete, after she complained to MSU employees, including

trainers and her head coach Kelli Bert, that Defendant Nassar touched her vaginal area

although she was seeking treatment for an injured hamstring.

259. Despite her complaints to MSU representatives, Christie Achenbach’s concerns and

allegations went unaddressed.

260. In approximately 2000, Tiffany Thomas Lopez (formerly Jane T.T. Doe), a female student

athlete and member of MSU’s Women’s Softball Team, was sexually assaulted and abused

during “treatment” by Defendant Nassar and reported Defendant Nassar’s conduct to

MSU’s employees, including trainers.

261. Ms. Lopez’s allegations regarding the sexual assault include the following statements:

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that NASSAR had engaged in unlawful sexually-related conduct in the past, and/or was continuing to engage in such conduct. Defendants had a duty to disclose these facts to Plaintiff, her parents and others, but negligently and/or intentionally suppressed, concealed or failed to disclose this information. The duty to disclose this information arose by the special, trusting, confidential, fiduciary relationship between Defendants and Plaintiff. Specifically, [MSU] knew that NASSAR was performing intravaginal adjustments with his bare, ungloved hand and in isolation with young females, based on the following:

18 Plaintiff Achenbach is a Plaintiff in lead case 1:17-cv-29. 34

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.35 15:55:43 Page Pg 3635 ofof 239238

a. The Plaintiff, approximately 18 years old at the time, had a visit with NASSAR where he touched her vagina, in order to purportedly heal back pain she was having, under the guise of legitimate medical treatment. The Plaintiff complained to a trainer on her softball team who responded by saying that NASSAR was a world renowned doctor, and that it was legitimate medical treatment. The Plaintiff continued with the purported treatment;

b. As the purported treatments continued, NASSAR became more bold, having the Plaintiff remove her pants, and then inserting his bare, ungloved and unlubricated hand into her vagina. The Plaintiff, again, reported to MSU training staff, this time a higher ranking trainer. This trainer told the Plaintiff that the treatment sounded unusual and that the Plaintiff needed to speak to an even higher level trainer in the Department, who ended up being one of three individuals who supervised the entire department at MSU;

c. When the Plaintiff went to see this individual, the Plaintiff was told by that individual that what happened to the Plaintiff was not sexual abuse, that NASSAR was a world renowned doctor, and that the Plaintiff was not to discuss what happened with NASSAR and was to continue seeing him for purported treatment. The Plaintiff continued to see NASSAR for treatment;

d. Finally, in or around 2001, the Plaintiff refused to continue to see NASSAR for these abusive and invasive procedures. MSU then pressured and coerced the Plaintiff to declare herself medically inactive. The Plaintiff was shunned from the MSU sports program, and left MSU to return home to California.19

262. Despite her complaints to MSU employees, agents, and representatives, Ms. Lopez’s

concerns and allegations went unaddressed in violation of reporting policies and

procedures and Title IX and in a manner that was reckless, deliberately indifferent, and

grossly negligent.

263. Because MSU took no action to investigate the 1997/1998, 1999 or 2000 complaints and

took no corrective action during that time, under the guise of treatment, dozens of Plaintiffs,

and possibly hundreds of others, many of whom were minors, were also sexually assaulted,

abused, and molested by Defendant Nassar by vaginal and anal digital penetration, without

19 See, Case No. BC644417, filed with the Superior California Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, December 21, 2016, ¶26. 35

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.36 15:55:43 Page Pg 3736 ofof 239238

the use of gloves or lubricant and by touching and groping their breasts.

264. Between 2000 and 2002, Jennifer Rood Bedford20 raised concerns regarding Defendant

Nassar with Athletic Trainer Lianna Hadden telling her she was uncomfortable with

Defendant Nassar’s conduct and inquired into how to make a complaint/report to indicate

she had been uncomfortable with his conduct at her appointments.

265. Following a discussion with Ms. Hadden, Ms. Bedford was confused and frightened about

the potential repercussion and ultimately did not file a formal complaint.

266. In 2004, Defendant Nassar authored a chapter in Principles of Manual Sports Medicine by

Steven J. Karageanes.

267. In the chapter, Defendant Nassar described the pelvic diaphragm, coccyx, and sacroiliac

ligaments as an area of the body not fully examined due to its proximity to the genitalia

and buttocks, and stated it was “referred to as the ‘no fly zone’ “because of the many

cultural stigmas in touching this area.”

268. Defendant Nassar recommended taking “special measures to explain any examination and

techniques applied in this region,” and “warning in advance of what you are planning to

do,” among other suggestions.

269. There is no mention of intra-vaginal or intra-rectal techniques or procedures in the chapter.

270. As described in detail below, Defendant Nassar often failed to follow his own

recommendations with Plaintiffs as:

a. he did not explain any intravaginal or intra-rectal techniques to Plaintiffs or their

parents; and,

b. he did not warn Plaintiffs he was going to engage in vaginal or anal digital

20 Jennifer Bedford is a Plaintiff in lead case 1:17-cv-29. 36

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.37 15:55:43 Page Pg 3837 ofof 239238

penetration before doing so.

271. Also in 2004, Plaintiff Brianne Randall reported Defendant Nassar’s conduct to her parents

and to local law enforcement, Meridian Township Police in 2004.

272. Also in or around 2004, Kyle Stephens,21 at approximately 12 years of age, who was not a

patient of Defendant Nassar, reported inappropriate conduct and touching of a sexual

nature to Defendant Gary Stollak who was employed by MSU.

273. In or around 2010, Defendant Geddert witnessed a gymnast who was approximately 15

years old being sexual assaulted by Defendant Nassar.22

274. Upon witnessing the sexual assault, Defendant Geddert made a joke and made a statement

to the gymnast to effect of: “I guess your back really did hurt.”23

275. In or around 2010, Defendant Geddert served in a leadership role with Defendant USAG

notably as a USAG coach representing Team USA in national and international USAG

competitions and on the Junior Olympic Program Committee.

276. In or around 2011, Defendant Geddert was traveling in a vehicle with members of the

USAG Senior National Team, including Aly Raisman.24

277. At the time, Defendant Geddert was serving in his capacity as a USAG Olympic Coach.25

278. Ms. Raisman indicated she and her teammates would talk about Defendant Nassar’s

conduct amongst themselves.26

21 Kyle Stephens is a Plaintiff in lead case 1:17-cv-29. 22 Testimony given on May 12, 2017 at the Preliminary Examination hearing in People v. Nassar, Case No. 17-318-FY. 23 Id. 24 Raisman says Olympics coach might have known about Nassar abuse for years, Saba Hamedy, available at https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/08/politics/aly-raisman-coach-allegations/index.html. Last accessed Feb. 8, 2018. 25 Id. 26 Id. 37

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.38 15:55:43 Page Pg 3938 ofof 239238

279. While traveling together, in Defendant Geddert’s presence, one of Ms. Raisman’s

teammates described “in graphic detail” what Defendant Nassar had done to her the prior

evening.27

280. Ms. Raisman stated Defendant Geddert did not question her or her teammate about the

statements made.

281. Again, in or around 2011, Defendant Geddert served in a leadership role with Defendant

USAG notably as a USAG coach representing Team USA in national and international

USAG competitions and on the Junior Olympic Program Committee.

282. As early as 2010, through Defendant Geddert, Defendant USAG had notice of Defendant

Nassar’s misconduct and propensity to sexually abuse and assault girls and young women.

283. In 2014, following receipt of an unrelated complaint regarding a sexual assault on MSU’s

campus, between 2014 and 2015 the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights

(hereinafter “OCR”) conducted an investigation regarding the complainant’s allegations,

another complaint regarding sexual assault and retaliation from 2011, and MSU’s response

to said complaints, and their general policies, practices, and customs pertaining to their

responsibilities under Title IX.28

284. The OCR concluded their investigation in 2015 and presented MSU with a twenty-one

page agreement containing measures and requirements to resolve the 2011 and 2014

27 Id. 28 See, Letter from U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights to Michigan State University, September 1, 2015, OCR Docket #15-11-2098, #15-14-2113. Available at https://www2.ed.gov/documents/press-releases/michigan-state-letter.pdf, last accessed Feb. 17, 2018. 38

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.39 15:55:43 Page Pg 4039 ofof 239238

complaints and to bring MSU in compliance with Title IX.29

285. While the OCR was conducting their investigation, additional complaints regarding

Defendant Nassar’s conduct surfaced in 2014. Plaintiff Amanda Thomashow reported she

had an appointment with Defendant Nassar to address hip pain and was sexually abused

and molested by Defendant Nassar when he cupped her buttocks, massaged her breast and

vaginal area, and he became sexually aroused.30

286. Upon information and belief, MSU investigated the 2014 complaints through their Office

of Institutional Equity.

287. MSU’s Police Department (“MSU PD”) also investigated the 2014 allegations made by

Plaintiff Jane D1 Doe.

288. Defendant Nassar represented to MSU PD during the 2014 investigation that he was known

as “The Dream Builder” and “The Body Whisperer.”

289. Defendant Nassar represented to MSU PD that he felt like he didn’t have to go to work,

but that he gets to go to work, and that “It just rocks my world.”

290. In approximately summer 2015, the USOC because aware of Defendant Nassar’s sexual

misconduct.

291. Defendant Nassar was permitted to return to work although a criminal investigation

remained open until approximately December 2015.

292. At the conclusion of the criminal investigation, on or around December 15, 2015, a

29 See, Resolution Agreement, August 28, 2015, OCR Document #15-11-2098, #15-14-2133. Available at, https://www2.ed.gov/documents/press-releases/michigan-state-agreement.pdf. Last accessed Feb. 17, 2018. 30 See, At MSU: Assault, harassment and secrecy. Matt Mencarini, December 15, 2016. Available at, http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/2016/12/15/michigan-state- sexual-assault- harassment-larry-nassar/94993582/. Last accessed Feb. 17, 2018. 39

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.40 15:55:43 Page Pg 4140 ofof 239238

representative from MSU’s police department spoke with Defendant Nassar, advised him

to thoroughly explain his medical techniques to patients prior to touching them, ensuring

that they understood, and to have a chaperone in the exam room with him at all times.31

293. Defendant Nassar responded indicating he fully understood and had made that process and

procedure his routine since the case evolved.32

294. Defendant Nassar’s statement to MSU was completely false, and his statement and actions

went unchecked, unverified, and unsupervised.33

295. In or around June 2015, Plaintiff Margaret Nichols and other athletes were overheard

discussing Nassar’s misconduct at the Karolyi Ranch.

296. The "Karolyi Ranch" was designated as being the United States’ Olympic Training Center,

thus, was required to follow all protocols, mandates, policies, bylaws, rules, and/or practices

of Defendant USOC (as well as Defendant USAG).

297. Defendant USOC was responsible for ensuring that the Karolyi Ranch, provided adequate

supervision for the minors training and competing thereat, reasonable safety protocols

ensuring the safety of those minors, and reasonable supervision, training, and oversight

procedures for all medical care provided to gymnasts at the Karolyi Ranch, including

training of staff on identification of sexual abuse, proper procedures, use Karolyi Ranch,

31 MSU University Police Department Case Report No. 1758100919. Available at http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/michigan/files/201712/fbi_investigation_into_nassar.pdf? _ga=2.158457466.1791923992.1513722353-1282647051.1440964267, Last accessed, Feb. 17, 2018. 32 Id. 33 See generally, specific allegations from Plaintiffs who were sexually abused, assaulted, and molested after July 2014 in W.D. Mich. Case Nos. 1:17-cv-29, 1:17-cv-222, 1:17-cv-244, 1:17- cv-254, 1:17-cv-257, 1:17-cv-288, 1:17-cv-349, 1:17-cv-676, and 1:17-cv-684. Several of the Plaintiffs include allegations that Nassar did not explain his medical techniques, did not have a chaperone in the room such as a resident or nurse during any explanation (of which there usually wasn’t an explanation) or during the “procedure.” 40

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.41 15:55:43 Page Pg 4241 ofof 239238

including training of staff on identification of sexual abuse, proper procedures, use of proper

medical care, and staffing of ample medical personnel to ensure proper care of all minor

gymnasts.

298. An adult reported Plaintiff Nichols’ concerns to USAG.

299. Plaintiff Nichols’ complaints were received by former USAG President and CEO Steve

Penny and a representative of the USOC, among others.

300. Mr. Penny and Defendant USAG dissuaded Plaintiff Margaret Nichols and her family from

pursuing the matter and asked that they refrain from contacting law enforcement.

301. At least five weeks passed before Defendant USAG reported Defendant Nassar to law

enforcement.

302. Allegedly, after receiving allegations of “athlete concerns,” in approximately summer 2015

Defendant USAG relieved Defendant Nassar of his duties.34

303. Defendant Nassar represented publicly that he “retired” from his duties with Defendant

USAG.

304. At no time did Defendant USAG or the USOC inform Defendants MSU, MSU Trustees,

other MSU representatives, Defendants Twistars, Geddert or any USAG members or

member clubs of the concerns that led to or any MSU Defendant Nassar being relieved

from his duties with Defendant USAG.

305. At no time did Defendant USAG or the USOC inform its member athletes, coaches,

member clubs or the public that Defendant Nassar had been dismissed, relieved from his

duties, and was under criminal investigation.

34 See, Former USA Gymnastics doctor accused of abuse, Mark Alesia, Marisa Kwiatkowski, Tim Evans, September 12, 2016. Available at, http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2016/09/12/ former-usa-gymnastics-doctor-accused-abuse/89995734/. Last accessed, January 5, 2017. 41

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.42 15:55:43 Page Pg 4342 ofof 239238

306. Instead Defendant USAG and the USOC allowed its members and the public to believe

Nassar simply “retired.”

307. In August 2016 the Indianapolis Star published an article titled, “A blind eye to sex abuse:

How USA Gymnastics failed to report cases,” the subheading of the article reading, “The

prominent Olympic organization failed to alert authorities to many allegations of sexual

abuse by coaches.”

308. The article chronicles a history of USAG’s failure to properly report sexual abuse stating

in part:

Top executives at one of American’s most prominent Organizations failed to alert authorities to many allegations of sexual abuse by coaches – relying on a policy that enabled predators to abuse gymnasts long after USA Gymnastics had received warnings …In 2013 … two former [USAG] officials admitted under oath that the organization routinely dismissed sexual abuse allegations as hearsay unless they came directly from a victim or a victim’s parent … records show the organization compiled complaint dossiers on more than 50 coaches and filed them in a drawer in its executive office in Indianapolis … [USAG] compiled confidential sexual misconduct complaint files about 54 coaches over a 10-year period from 1996 to 2006 … It’s unclear which, if any, of the complaints in those files were reported to authorities.35

309. Following publication of this article Plaintiff Rachael Denhollander and a former Olympic

gymnast (who was anonymous at the time, but has since publicly identified herself as

Olympic bronze medalist Jamie Dantzscher) contacted the Indianapolis Star with reports

of Defendant Nassar’s sexual abuse, assault, and molestation.

310. Defendant Nassar’s employment ended with MSU on approximately September 20, 2016

only after MSU became aware that:

a. Defendants Nassar and USAG were sued by a former Olympian who alleged she

35 Id. 42

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.43 15:55:43 Page Pg 4443 ofof 239238

was sexually assaulted by Defendant Nassar;36 and,

b. A former patient of Defendant Nassar, Plaintiff Rachael Denhollander, filed a

criminal complaint with the Michigan State University Police Department alleging

Defendant Nassar sexually assaulted her when she was 15 years old and seeking

treatment for back pain as a result of gymnastics. Plaintiff Denhollander’s

allegations of sexual assault by Defendant Nassar included but were not limited to:

i. Massaging her genitals;

ii. Penetrating her vagina and anus with his finger and thumb; and,

iii. Unhooking her bra and massaging her breasts.37

311. Reasons given to Defendant Nassar for his termination included but were not limited to:

a. Deviation from “required best practices put in place following the internal sexual

harassment investigation conducted … in 2014;”

b. Failure to disclose a 2004 complaint to Meridian Township Police; and,

c. Dishonesty by Defendant Nassar when MSU questioned him about receiving prior

complaints about the “procedure” at issue.

312. Several Plaintiffs were made aware of the allegations of Defendant Nassar’s widespread

sexual abuse on or around September 12, 2016 or sometime thereafter through related

media coverage.38

36 See, Case No. 34-2016-00200075, filed with the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, September 8, 2016. A copy of the Complaint is available at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3106054-Jane-JD-COMPLAINT-Signed.html. Last accessed, January 5, 2017. 37 See, Former USA Gymnastics doctor accused of abuse, Mark Alesia, Marisa Kwiatkowski, Tim Evans, September 12, 2016. Available at, http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2016/09/12/ former-usa-gymnastics-doctor-accused-abuse/89995734/. Last accessed, January 5, 2017. 38 Id. 43

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.44 15:55:43 Page Pg 4544 ofof 239238

313. Others have been made aware of the allegations of Defendant Nassar’s conduct more

recently through related media coverage.

314. In late November 2016, Defendant Nassar was arrested and charged in Ingham County,

Michigan on three charges of first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a person under 13,

and was later released on $1 million bond.39

315. In mid-December 2016, Defendant Nassar was indicted, arrested, and charged in Federal

Court in Grand Rapids, Michigan on charges of possession of child pornography and

receipt/attempted receipt of child pornography.

316. According to the federal indictment,40 Defendant Nassar:

a. Knowingly received and attempted to receive child pornography between

approximately September 18, 2004 and December 1, 2004;

b. Knowingly possessed thousands of images of child pornography between

approximately February 6, 2003 and September 20, 2016 including images

involving a minor who had not attained 12 years of age.

317. Testimony given by an FBI agent at a hearing held on December 21, 2016, alleged, among

other allegations, that Defendant Nassar used a GoPro camera to record video images of

children in a swimming pool and that:

a. Defendant Nassar’s hand can be seen grabbing one girl’s hand and shoving it into

the vaginal area of another girl; and,41

b. Defendant Nassar’s thumb can be seen pressing into a child’s vagina/vaginal area.42

39 State of Michigan, Ingham County Circuit Court Case No. 1603031. 40 1:16-cr-00242, PageID.1-4. 41 Id. at PageID.49-50. 42 Id. at PageID.50. 44

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.45 15:55:43 Page Pg 4645 ofof 239238

318. On February 7, 2017, a superseding indictment added an additional count of “Destruction

and Concealment of Records and Tangible Objects” alleging between September 19, 2016

and September 20, 2016, Defendant Nassar “caused a third-party vendor to permanently

delete and destroy all images, records, documents, and files contained on the hard drive of

a laptop computer, and the defendant threw in the trash a number of external hard drives.”43

319. On February 17, 2017, at a preliminary examination, Defendant Nassar was ordered to

stand trial on three charges of first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a person under 13

in Ingham County following testimony which included, among others, allegations of digital

vaginal penetration at Defendant Nassar’s residence.

320. On February 22, 2017, Defendant Nassar was arraigned on 22 counts of first-degree

criminal sexual conduct with a person under 13 years old, and 14 counts of third-degree

criminal sexual conduct with a person under the age of 13 years old in Ingham County,

Michigan44 and Eaton County, Michigan.45

321. Plaintiffs Denhollander, Lorincz, Jane A9 Doe (minor), Jones, and J.T. (minor),46 were

among the victims identified in the Ingham County state criminal charges. 47

43 Id. at PageID.88. 44People v. Nassar, Ingham County District Court Case No. 17-00425-FY, see also, http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/Nassar_affidavit_Ingham_County_charges_Feb._2017_ 552531_7.pdf 45People v. Nassar, Eaton County District Court Case No. 17-0318-FY, see also, http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/Nassar_affidavit_Eaton_County_charges_Feb._2017_5 52536_7.pdf 46 Plaintiffs Lorincz, Jane A9 Doe (minor), Jones, and J.T. (minor) are Plaintiffs in lead case, 1:17- cv-29. 47 Although the sexual assault victims are not identified by name in the affidavits hyperlinked above, Plaintiff Denhollander has publicly identified herself as one of the victims. See, “Victim C” in Michigan State Dr. Larry Nassar case glad to see criminal charges, available at http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/02/victim_c_in_michigan_state_dr.html. Last accessed Feb. 17, 2018. Plaintiffs Lorincz, Jones, and J.T. (minor), publicly identified themselves at sentencing hearings held in January and February 2018. 45

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.46 15:55:43 Page Pg 4746 ofof 239238

322. In mid-March 2017, Steve Penny resigned as president of Defendant USAG amid

allegations Defendant USAG failed to promptly notify authorities of allegations raised

against Defendant Nassar.

323. Over several days in May and June 2017, victims testified regarding Defendant Nassar’s

conduct during appointments held at MSU, Twistars, and Defendant Nassar’s residence for

medical treatment.48

324. Plaintiff Denhollander testified Defendant Nassar engaged in vaginal and anal penetration

without notice, gloves, lubricant or consent from her parents.

325. Plaintiff Denhollander also testified Defendant Nassar groped her breast and appeared to

have an erection while doing so.

326. Other Plaintiffs including Plaintiffs Lorincz, Jane A9 Doe (minor), Jones, and J.T. (minor),

also testified Defendant Nassar engaged in vaginal and anal digital penetration without

notice, gloves, lubricant, or consent from their parents.

327. On June 23, 2017, Defendant Nassar was ordered to stand trial on twelve charges of first-

degree criminal sexual conduct with a person under 13 in Ingham County following

conclusion of the preliminary examination hearing which included, among others,

allegations of digital vaginal and anal penetration at MSU and Defendant Nassar’s

residence.

328. On June 26, 2017, Deborah J. Daniels, J.D. released a report titled, “Report to USA

Gymnastics on Proposed Policy and Procedural Changes for the Protection of Young

Athletes.”49

48 People v. Nassar, Ingham County District Court Case No. 17-00425-FY. 49 Avaialble at, https://usagym.org/PDFs/About%20USA%20Gymnastics/ddreport_062617.pdf. Last accessed Feb. 28, 2018. 46

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.47 15:55:43 Page Pg 4847 ofof 239238

329. Ms. Daniels’ report proposed 70 separate policy and procedural changes to Defendant

USAG and in a section titled “Overarching Recommendation: Cultural Shift Throughout

USA Gymnastics,” suggested:

USA Gymnastics needs to undergo a complete cultural change, permeating the entire organization and communicated to the field in all its actions. Further, USA Gymnastics needs to take action to ensure that this change in culture also is fully embraced by the clubs that host member coaches, instructors and athletes.”

330. Included within the 70 separate policy and procedural changes suggested were Daniels’ the

following recommendations:

a. Seek Individuals With Expertise in Child Protection for Leadership Team;

b. Change Culture of Entire Staff to Athlete Safety First;

c. Provide a Stronger Support System to Athletes;

d. Permit Third-Party Reporting of Policy Violations and Abuse to USA Gymnastics

by Third Parties;

e. Require Reporting of Abuse and Reporting of Policy Violations;

f. Enforce Serious Consequences for Failure to Report Abuse;

g. Expand Reporting Methods to Encourage and Facilitate Reporting;

h. Accept and Investigate Reports Relating to Misconduct by a Member in Which the

Victim is a Non-Member; and,

i. Provide Training to All Members and Staff Regarding Reporting Requirements.

331. To date, it is unknown how many, if any, of the 70 recommendations have been

implemented by Defendant USAG or USAG member gyms, coaches, and volunteers.

332. On July 10, 2017, Defendant Nassar pleaded guilty to the federal charges of child

pornography, receipt/attempted receipt of child pornography, and destruction and

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.48 15:55:43 Page Pg 4948 ofof 239238

concealment of records and tangible objects.50

333. On November 22, 2017, Defendant Nassar pleaded guilty to 7 counts of first-degree

criminal sexual conduct in Ingham County Michigan.

334. On November 29, 2017, Defendant Nassar pleaded guilty to 3 counts of first degree

criminal sexual conduct in Eaton County Michigan.

335. On December 7, 2017 Defendant Nassar was sentenced to a 720 month (60 year) prison

term. The sentence included three 240 month (20 year) terms to be served consecutively.

336. From, January 16, 2018 to January 24, 2018, a sentencing hearing was held in Ingham

County Michigan for the 7 counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct to which

Defendant Nassar pleaded guilty.

337. From January 31, 2018 to February 5, 2018, a sentencing hearing was held in Eaton County

Michigan for the 3 counts of first degree criminal sexual conduct to which Defendant

Nassar pleaded guilty.

338. Hundreds of Plaintiffs (as well as others who are not Plaintiffs in this action or the

consolidated member cases), provided victim impact statements at the hearings.

339. Some of the Plaintiffs who were seeking to proceed anonymously in this litigation chose

to publicly identify themselves at the sentencing hearing.

340. In total, approximately 204 victim impact statements were given over 9 days in two

counties, the first speaker, was Kyle Stephens—the last speaker, was Plaintiff Rachael

Denhollander. They bookended many of Plaintiffs in this case and the other consolidated

member cases.

341. On January 24, 2018, Defendant Nassar was sentenced to a 40 to 175 year prison term in

50 1:16-cr-00242, Page ID.114, 119. 48

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.49 15:55:43 Page Pg 5049 ofof 239238

Ingham County.

342. On February 5, 2018, Defendant Nassar was sentenced to a 40 to 125 year prison term in

Eaton County.

343. During a press conference held prior to the opening of the 2018 Winter Olympic Games in

PyeongChang, South Korea, USOC Chairman Larry Probst apologized to sexual assault

survivors of Defendant Nassar, saying “The Olympic system in the United States failed

those athletes … and we are part of the Olympic System in the United States.

344. Mr. Probst acknowledged the USOC should have reached out sooner to gymnasts who were

survivors of sexual abuse.

345. Mr. Probst also acknowledge the USOC should have attended recently concluded

sentencing hearings in Michigan from January to February, 2018, stating “That was simply

a mistake … We should have been there.”

346. At that same press conference, Mr. Probst also defended Scott Blackmun’s handling of the

complaints received by the USOC in 2015 regarding Nassar’s sexual misconduct.

347. Mr. Blackmun later resigned as CEO of the USOC.

348. Later, in February 2018, Congress enacted the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual

Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act (“Safe Sport Act”) to “prevent the sexual abuse

of minors and amateur athletes by requiring the prompt reporting of sexual abuse to law

enforcement authorities, and for other purposes.”

349. On March 28, 2017, in a hearing on the congressional bills preceding the enactment of the

Safe Sport Act, Rick Adams, USOC Executive in charge of governing body development

apologized to survivors of sexual abuse stating, “We do take responsibility, and we

apologize to any young athlete who has ever faced abuse.”

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.50 15:55:43 Page Pg 5150 ofof 239238

350. Under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, “‘amateur athlete’ means an

athlete who meets the eligibility standards established by the national governing body or

paraolympic sports organization for the sport in which the athlete competes.” 36 U.S.C. §

220501(b)(1).

351. Plaintiffs who were USAG members were amateur athletes as defined under the Safe Sport

Act at the time of suffering abuse by Nassar and at the time employees and representatives

of Defendants USAG and USOC learned of Nassar’s abuse and sexual misconduct.

352. The Safe Sport Act amended 34 U.S.C. 20341 as follows: “[T]he term ‘covered individual’

means an adult who is authorized, by a national governing body, a member of a national

governing body, or an amateur sports organization that participates in the interstate or

international amateur athletic competition, to interact with a minor or amateur athlete at an

amateur sports organization facility or at any event sanctioned by a national governing

body, a member of a national governing body, or such an amateur sports organization.” 34

U.S.C. § 20341(c)(9).

353. Employees, representatives, and agents of Defendants USOC and USAG who received

reports of Defendant Nassar’s misconduct as noted and indicated above, qualify as covered

individuals under the Safe Sport Act.

354. Defendant USOC has the power to decertify USAG and any member gyms or teams in

executing their duty to ensure “proper safety precautions have been taken to protect the

personal welfare of the athletes,” in granting NGBs a sanction to host national or

international events.” 36 U.S.C. §220525(b)(4)(F).

355. Moreover, as part of an NGBs mandate from Defendant USOC, Defendant USAG was to,

“encourage and support, research, development, and dissemination of information in the

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.51 15:55:43 Page Pg 5251 ofof 239238

areas of sports medicine and sports safety.”

356. Had Defendant USOC performed its mandate reasonably and diligently, and in accord with

its duty to protect minor children under Federal and Michigan law, Defendant Nassar

would have been investigated, sanctioned, and/or removed from the employ and service of

Defendants USOC, USAG, and others.

357. At all times relevant to Plaintiffs’ sexual abuse at the hands of Defendant Nassar,

Defendant USOC was responsible for the Plaintiffs supervision while they competed at the

Olympics, the Olympic Trials, the World Artistic Gymnastics Championships, and other

meets and competitions within the purview of the USOC.

358. Defendant USOC provided entirely inadequate or ineffective measures to ensure Plaintiffs’

protection from the risk of sexual abuse, either at the events or in their living quarters,

where sexual abuse by Defendant Nassar occurred.

359. Plaintiffs were either provided little supervision or no supervision by Defendants USOC

and USAG while “treatment” was performed in their living quarters by Defendant Nassar.

360. In approximately 2010, Defendant USOC convened what it termed the “Working Group

for Safe Training Environments” to purportedly address, among other issues, physical and

sexual abuse of amateur athletes in NGBs.

361. It was not until approximately 2011, after this commission met that Defendant USOC hired

an individual to head its “SafeSport” program and later, in approximately 2012,

“SafeSport” handbook was adopted and promulgated safeguards and safety protections

from minor athletes from the risks and dangers of sexual abuse.

362. These policies were adopted well after former USAG president Robert Colarossi informed

Defendant USOC of the dangers and risks of sexual abuse in gymnastics, almost a decade

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.52 15:55:43 Page Pg 5352 ofof 239238

prior.

363. One requirement for NGBs, such as Defendant USAG to remain in good standing with

Defendant USOC is to “1) comply with the safe sport policies of the corporation and with

the policies and procedures of the independent safe sport organization designated by the

corporation to enhance safe sport practices and to investigate and resolve safe sport

violations (no exceptions to this requirement shall be allowed unless granted by the CEO,

or his designee, after allowing the [NGB] … to present the reasons for such exception) ….”

364. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge and belief, the policies introduced in 2011 by

SafeSport have become more stringent over the years.

365. However, Plaintiffs are also informed and believe, and on that basis allege that Defendant

USOC has continually failed to adequately enforce these policies on the whole, and utterly

failed to enforce these policies against Defendants Nassar and USAG.

366. Defendant USOC has had and continues to have a culture and atmosphere that conceals

known and suspected sexual abusers which transcends all policies and procedures currently

and previously existing.

367. Defendant USOC has a practice and culture of ignoring its own internal rules and mandates

for NBGs such as Defendant USAG, in order to protect its reputation and blind itself to

known abusers within the ranks of NBGs for which it is responsible.

368. Defendant USOC currently promulgates SafeSport policies that prevent "...USOC

employees, coaches, contracted staff, volunteers, board members, committee and task force

members, and other individuals working with athletes or other sport participants while at

an OTC, whether or not they are employees of the USOC" and "...[a]thletes training while

at an OTC, whether or not they are employees of the USOC" and "...[a]thletes training

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.53 15:55:43 Page Pg 5453 ofof 239238

and/or residing at a USOC Olympic Training Center" from engaging in sexually abusive

misconduct, including "child sexual abuse" and "sexual misconduct." See, USOC Safe

Sport Policies, Section II(c).

369. Defendant USOC also has policies for identifying “grooming” behaviors which it defines as

“…the most common strategy used by offenders to seduce their victims.”

370. These policies (or prior versions that were similar or less restrictive) were in effect and applied

to Defendant USAG as early as 2012.

371. Defendant Nassar Defendant USAG’s National Team Physician was subject to every

iteration of these policies.

372. Despite the existence of these policies, after 2012, Defendant USOC allowed Defendant Nassar

to continue to participate with minor children in conjunction with Defendant USAG, the NGB

for Women’s Gymnastics, and failed to adequately enforce these policies, or mandate that

Defendant USAG enforce these policies.

373. For example, Defendant Nassar was repeatedly informally censured, disciplined, and

reprimanded by Defendants USOC and USAG, Mr. Penny, and Mr. Parilla for taking an

inordinate number of photographs of young girls, who were gymnasts.

374. This misconduct by Defendant Nassar was in direct contravention of his duties set forth by

Defendants USOC and USAG and was not communicated to Plaintiffs.

375. This misconduct was not further investigated, not reported to law enforcement or child

welfare authorities, and was never made known to Plaintiffs, their parents, or other

gymnasts, in direct violation of Defendant USAG’s mandate under Defendant USOC’s

policies, procedures and rules.

376. Due to Defendant USOC’s systemic and knowing failure to enforce these policies, Plaintiffs

were sexually harassed, abused, and molested by Defendant Nassar.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.54 15:55:43 Page Pg 5554 ofof 239238

377. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge and belief, Defendant USAG was and has at all relevant

times been “in good standing” with Defendant USOC despite failing to adhere to and enforce

USOC’s SafeSport policies.

378. In or around 2015 when Defendants USOC and USAG learned of Nassar’s sexual

misconduct, they both failed to protect their members and other amateur athletes from

Nassar.

379. Upon learning of Defendant Nassar’s sexual misconduct, Defendants USOC and USAG

failed to immediately report Nassar’s misconduct to law enforcement.

380. This delay left dozens if not hundreds of athletes at risk for sexual abuse, assault, and

molestation at the hand of Defendant Nassar.

381. Defendants USOC and USAG also failed to notify MSU and Defendant Twistars of the

reports of Nassar’s sexual misconduct.

382. This failure also left dozens if not hundreds of athletes at risk for sexual abuse, assault, and

molestation at the hand of Defendant Nassar.

383. As advertised on its website, "[t]he USOC has two primary responsibilities in its oversight

of Olympic and Paralympic sport in the United States. The first is to generate resources in

support of its mission, which is to help American athletes achieve sustained competitive

excellence. The second is to ensure organizational resources are wisely and effectively used

to that end."

384. Furthermore, Defendant "...USOC is committed to creating a safe and positive environment

for athletes' physical, emotional and social development and to ensuring that it promotes

an environment free of misconduct."

385. Under the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act, 36 U.S.C. §§220501, et seq. (hereinafter, "Ted

Stevens Act") Defendant USOC had a mandatory obligation to ensure that before granting

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.55 15:55:43 Page Pg 5655 ofof 239238

NGBs, including Defendant USAG, a sanction to host National or International events, that

they provide "proper medical supervision will be provided for athletes who will participate in

the competition." 36 U.S.C. §§220525(b)(4)(E).

386. Defendant USOC has failed to fulfill its core mission to support and protect amateur

athletes under its federal congressional charter.

387. Investigations by the Michigan Attorney General’s office, U.S. Congress, and other law

enforcement offices and governmental departments are open and ongoing.

388. The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on May 23, 2018 and

questioned CEOs of various NGBs including Kerry Perry, President and CEO of Defendant

USAG and Susanne Lyons, former acting CEO of the USOC.

389. Ms. Lyons apologized to athletes who were sexually abused and their families, stressed a

commitment to protect athletes, and to make changes to the USOC to prevent future abuse

stating, “The Olympic community failed the people it was supposed to protect … I know

that we can do better.”

390. The U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance and

Data Security have held three hearings (June 5, 2018, and July 24, 2018) and questioned

current and former representatives and employees of Defendants MSU, USAG, and USOC.

391. In June 2018, Rhonda Faehn testified she learned of Nassar’s abuse and misconduct in

approximately June 2015 yet never reported it to law enforcement.51

392. Ms. Faehn testified Steve Penny repeatedly told her not to report to law enforcement and

that “he would handle it.”

51 Archived webcast of the hearing is available at https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=FEE69D30-2152-45BE-9E31- 9A6ECEDB4CF2. 55

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.56 15:55:43 Page Pg 5756 ofof 239238

393. Ms. Faehn testified further she was instructed to tell gymnasts reports of abuse by Nassar

were being handled within USAG and that families also need not contact law enforcement.

394. Ms. Faehn also testified Mr. Penny instructed a USAG employee to travel to the Karolyi

ranch and gather medical records and return them to USAG headquarters in Indianapolis,

Indiana.

395. To the best of Plaintiffs’ knowledge and belief, the medical records have not been located.

396. At the same hearing, Mr. Penny invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-

incrimination and refused to answer any questions.

397. In July 2018, through her testimony, Kerry Perry confirmed Ms. Faehn’s story regarding

the missing medical records.52

398. Ms. Perry also expressly confirmed that Defendant Nassar was USAG’s agent, directly

contradicting USAG’s arguments and positions in its previously filed Motions to Dismiss

and Answers.

399. The Law and Justice Committee and Appropriates Subcommittee on Higher Education of

the Michigan House of Representatives led a four month investigation which concluded

with a bipartisan package of legislation to effect recommendations made in an April 2018

report to the Speaker of the House.

400. Among the many recommendations by the committees included a bill to extend the statute

of limitations to allow survivors of sexual abuse and sexual assault additional time to avail

themselves of the judicial system to seek redress of their harm, 2018 Public Act 183.

401. The law was passed and became effective June 12, 2018, MCL §600.5851b(3).

52 Archived webcast of the hearing available at https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=1E819A6A-87FE-4798-84C9- 2AD010BB77EF. 56

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.57 15:55:43 Page Pg 5857 ofof 239238

402. This statute has the effect of expanding the civil statute of limitations for claims involving

sexual abuse prospectively and also, for a limited number of cases, provides retroactivity

for claims “commenced” within 90 days following its enactment.

403. During and in the wake of the sentencing hearings and investigations :

a. Defendant Geddert was suspended by Defendant USAG on or around January 22,

2018, announced his retirement a few days later, and transferred ownership and

control of Defendant Twistars to his wife Kathryn Geddert;

b. Ms. Simon resigned as President of MSU on January 24, 2018;

c. Mr. Hollis resigned as Athletic Director of MSU on January 26, 2018.

d. By January 31, 2018, the entire board of USAG gymnastics resigned under threat

of decertification by the USOC;

e. Steps to revoke Strampel’s tenure and terminate his employment were initiated on

or around February 9, 2018, with MSU stating publicly, “…Strampel did not act

with the level of professionalism we expect from individuals who hold senior

leadership positions, particularly in a position that involves student and patient

safety … Further allegations have arisen that question whether his personal conduct

over a long period of time met MSU’s standards”;53

f. Scott Blackmun resigned as USOC CEO on February 28, 2018;54

g. Strampel was arrested and charged criminally with charges of felony misconduct

53 See, Engler Takes First step to Remove Strampel, February 8, 2018, available at http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2018/engler-takes-first-step-to-remove-strampel/. Last accessed Feb. 17, 2018. 54 U.S. Olympic Committee CEO Scott Blackmun resigns, A.J. Perez, available at https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/olympics/2018/02/28/u-s-olympic-committee-ceo-scott- blackmun-resigns/382569002/. Last accessed Feb. 28, 2018. 57

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.58 15:55:43 Page Pg 5958 ofof 239238

in office, and fourth degree criminal sexual conduct in March 2018; he later retired

from MSU;

h. Rhonda Faehn was dismissed from her position as senior vice president of USAG

in May 2018;

i. Klages was charged criminally with two counts of lying to investigators in August

2018; and,

j. Kerry Perry resigned as USAG CEO on September 4, 2018.

404. Though Defendant USAG complied with Defendant USOC’s request for the entire Board

to resign, appointments and hires made in the interim months have been widely criticized

and discredited.

405. Defendants USAG and USOC have failed to effect meaningful change that will protect

athletes at all levels of sport.

406. This litigation commenced in January 2017, and Plaintiffs remain deeply concerned that

current and future gymnasts and athletes are remain risk of suffering abuse of all types

including sexual, emotional, and physical.

V. SPECIFIC FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. RACHAEL DENHOLLANDER

407. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

408. Plaintiff Rachael Denhollander treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU in 2000.

409. In 2000, Plaintiff Denhollander was a minor, 15 years old.

410. Plaintiff Denhollander presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of injuries to her

wrists and back suffered through gymnastics.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.59 15:55:43 Page Pg 6059 ofof 239238

411. Plaintiff Denhollander is a former USAG member.

412. On approximately five separate occasions, at appointments at his office at MSU, Defendant

Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Denhollander’s vagina and anus with his finger and

thumb without prior notice and without gloves or lubricant (on some occasions) under the

guise of performing “treatment.”

413. On at least one occasion Defendant Nassar removed Plaintiff Denhollander’s clothing from

the waist down and draped Plaintiff with a towel without any warning and without asking

permission.

414. Defendant Nassar also massaged Plaintiff Denhollander’s genitals.

415. Defendant Nassar also touched Plaintiff Denhollander’s breasts without permission by

unhooking her bra and massaging one of her breasts. On at least one occasion when he

finished massaging Plaintiff Denhollander’s breast he rehooked her bra himself.

416. On at least one occasion at an appointment, Plaintiff Denhollander witnessed Defendant

Nassar sexually aroused.

417. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Denhollander.

418. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration or to

touch Plaintiff Denhollander’s vagina, anus, or breasts.

419. Plaintiff Denhollander did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for issues

related to obstetrics or gynecology (hereinafter “OB/GYN”).

420. Plaintiff Denhollander believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault, abuse,

and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

421. After reviewing a media report regarding Defendant USAG’s failure to report sexual

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.60 15:55:43 Page Pg 6160 ofof 239238

abuse,55 in or around late August 2016 or early September 2016, Plaintiff Denhollander

made a complaint with MSU’s Police Department.

B. JESSICA HOWARD

422. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

423. From the age of 3, Plaintiff Jessica Howard trained and competed as a gymnast.

424. At the age of 9, Plaintiff Howard began training and competing as a rhythmic gymnastics.

425. Plaintiff Howard is a former USAG member.

426. Plaintiff Howard was a member of the USAG National team from 1997 – 2002.

427. In 1999, at the age of 15, Plaintiff Howard competed and earned the title of Rhythmic

Senior National Champion, a position she held for three years.

428. In 1999, prior the World Championships, Plaintiff Howard was suffering from severe hip

pain.

429. Defendant USAG suggested she go to the Karolyi Ranch in Texas following the World

Championship competition to received medical treatment from Defendant Nassar.

430. At this time, Defendant Nassar was employed by MSU as an Assistant Professor and part

of his duties included participation in “Outreach” and “Community Activities” which

included but was not limited to his involvement with Defendant USAG.

431. At her first appointment, Defendant Nassar requested Plaintiff Howard wear loose shorts

and no underwear.

55 A blind eye to sex abuse: How USA Gymnastics failed to report cases, Marisa Kwiatkowski, Mark Alesia, Tim Evans, August 4, 2016. Available at http://www.indystar.com/story/news/investigations/2016/08/04/usa-gymnastics-sex-abuse- protected-coaches/85829732/. Last accessed January 5, 2017. 60

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.61 15:55:43 Page Pg 6261 ofof 239238

432. At the first appointment, Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Howard’s vagina

without prior notice, gloves, or lubricant.

433. This conduct continued for most of the rest of the week Plaintiff Howard spent at the

Karolyi Ranch.

434. Plaintiff Howard and other gymnasts at the Karolyi Ranch talked about Defendant Nassar

and other gymnasts made comments to Plaintiff Howard stating that Defendant Nassar

“touches you funny.”

435. At no time was there a chaperone present for any of Plaintiff Howard’s appointments with

Defendant Nassar.

436. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Howard or Plaintiff Howard’s parents.

437. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Plaintiff Howard or Plaintiff Howard’s parents as she was a minor at the time.

438. Plaintiff Howard did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant. Nassar for OB/GYN issues.

439. Plaintiff Howard believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault, abuse, and

molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

C. KAYLEE LORINCZ

440. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

441. Plaintiff Kaylee Lorincz treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU from

approximately 2011 to 2014, and in 2016.

442. From 2011 to 2016, Plaintiff Kaylee Lorincz was a minor, approximately 12 to 17 years

old.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.62 15:55:43 Page Pg 6362 ofof 239238

443. Plaintiff Kaylee Lorincz presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of back pain as a

result of gymnastics.

444. Plaintiff Lorincz is a former USAG member.

445. In 2014 and 2016 at appointments at his office at MSU, Defendant Nassar digitally

penetrated Plaintiff Kaylee Lorincz’s vagina multiple times without prior notice and

without gloves or lubricant.

446. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiffs Kaylee Lorincz or her mother.

447. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Plaintiff Kaylee Lorincz or Plaintiff Kaylee Lorincz’s parents.

448. Plaintiff Kaylee Lorincz’s medical records produced by MSU regarding her visits with

Defendant Nassar are completely devoid of any reference to any type of intra-vaginal

procedure.

449. Plaintiff Kaylee Lorincz did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

450. Following the September 12, 2016 publication of a story regarding a complaint filed with

MSU’s Police Department titled “Former USA Gymnastics doctor accused of Abuse,”

Plaintiff Kaylee Lorincz made a complaint to MSU’s Office of Institutional Equity.

451. Plaintiffs Kaylee Lorincz believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

D. OLIVIA COWAN

452. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.63 15:55:43 Page Pg 6463 ofof 239238

453. Plaintiff Olivia Cowan treated with Defendant Nassar between approximately 2004 and

2007 at his office at MSU.

454. From 2004 to 2007, Plaintiff Olivia Cowan was a minor, approximately 12 to 15 years old.

455. Plaintiff Olivia Cowan presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of lower back pain

as a result of old and new fractures suffered as a result of gymnastics.

456. Plaintiff Cowan is a former USAG member.

457. On approximately eight separate occasions at appointments at his office at MSU,

Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Olivia Cowan’s vagina and anus without

prior notice and without gloves or lubricant for several minutes at a time. The assaults

would sometimes last up to 30 minutes.

458. Defendant Nassar would put his hands under Plaintiff Olivia Cowan’s spandex shorts to

digitally penetrate Plaintiff Olivia Cowan’s vagina and anus.

459. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Olivia Cowan.

460. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Olivia Cowan or from Olivia Cowan’s parents even though she was a minor at the time.

461. Plaintiff Olivia Cowan did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

462. Plaintiff Olivia Cowan believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

463. As a result of the sexual assault, abuse, and molestation Plaintiff Olivia Cowan suffered

severe urinary tract infections, vaginal bleeding, and bleeding while urinating.

E. ALISON OTTEN

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.64 15:55:43 Page Pg 6564 ofof 239238

464. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

465. Plaintiff Alison Otten treated with Defendant Nassar between approximately 2006 and

2007 at his office at MSU.

466. From 2006 to 2007, Plaintiff Alison Otten was a minor, approximately 14 years old.

467. Plaintiff Alison Otten presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of back pain caused

by fractures suffered as a result of gymnastics.

468. Plaintiff Otten is a former USAG member.

469. On approximately six separate occasions at his office at MSU, Defendant Nassar digitally

penetrated Plaintiff Alison Otten’s vagina without prior notice and without gloves for

several minutes at a time.

470. Defendant Nassar required Plaintiff Alison Otten to change into breakaway shorts with

Velcro on the side, began massaging her back, and then put his hand under the shorts to

digitally penetrate her vagina.

471. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Alison Otten.

472. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Alison Otten or from Alison Otten’s parents even though she was a minor at the time.

473. Plaintiff Alison Otten did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

474. Plaintiff Alison Otten’s medical records produced by MSU regarding her visits with

Defendant Nassar are completely devoid of any reference to any type of intra-vaginal

procedure.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.65 15:55:43 Page Pg 6665 ofof 239238

475. Plaintiff Alison Otten believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault, abuse,

and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

F. BETHANY BAUMAN

476. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

477. Plaintiff Bethany Bauman treated with Defendant Nassar from approximately 1999 to 2003

at his office at MSU.

478. From 1999 to 2003, Plaintiff Bethany Bauman was a minor, approximately 14 to 17 years

old.

479. Plaintiff Bethany Bauman presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of low back pain

caused by gymnastics.

480. Plaintiff Bauman is a former USAG member.

481. On several occasions between 1999 and 2003, at appointments at his office at MSU,

Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Bethany Bauman’s vagina and anus without

prior notice and without gloves or lubricant.

482. On at least one occasion at a USAG sanctioned event which took place at Defendant

Twistars USA Inc.’s facility, Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Bethany

Bauman’s vagina without gloves or lubricant.

483. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Bethany Bauman.

484. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Bethany Bauman or from Bethany Bauman’s parents even though she was a minor at the

time.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.66 15:55:43 Page Pg 6766 ofof 239238

485. Plaintiff Bethany Bauman did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for

OB/GYN issues.

486. Plaintiff Bethany Bauman believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

487. Following the September 12, 2016 publication of a story regarding a complaint filed with

MSU’s Police Department titled “Former USA Gymnastics doctor accused of Abuse,”

Plaintiff Bethany Bauman made a complaint to MSU’s Police Department.

G. JANE A7 DOE

488. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

489. Plaintiff Jane A7 Doe treated with Defendant Nassar in 1998.

490. In 1998, Plaintiff Jane A7 Doe was a minor, 16 years old.

491. Plaintiff Jane A7 Doe presented to Defendant with complaints of pain from a torn

hamstring and fractured ischium caused by gymnastics.

492. Plaintiff Jane A7 Doe is a former USAG member.

493. On one occasion at a medical appointment at his office at MSU, Defendant Nassar digitally

penetrated Plaintiff Jane A7 Doe’s anus without prior notice and without gloves or

lubricant for several minutes.

494. At the appointment, Plaintiff was not permitted to sign in at the front desk and was brought

to an examination by Defendant Nassar.

495. During the sexual assault, at 16 years old, only Plaintiff Jane A7 Doe and Defendant Nassar

were in the examination room. There was no chaperone.

496. Defendant Nassar explained his conduct as a “new procedure” which involved vaginal

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.67 15:55:43 Page Pg 6867 ofof 239238

penetration to Plaintiff Jane A7 Doe.

497. Defendant Nassar did not discuss anal penetration with Plaintiff Jane A7 Doe.

498. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for anal penetration from

Plaintiff Jane A7 Doe or for vaginal or anal digital penetration from Plaintiff Jane A7 Doe’s

parents even though she was a minor at the time.

499. Plaintiff Jane A7 Doe’s medical records produced by MSU regarding her visits with

Defendant Nassar are completely devoid of any reference to any type of intra-vaginal

procedure.

500. Plaintiff Jane A7 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

501. Following the September 12, 2016 publication of a story regarding a complaint filed with

MSU’s Police Department titled “Former USA Gymnastics doctor accused of Abuse,”

Plaintiff Jane A7 Doe made a complaint to MSU’s Police Department.

502. Plaintiff Jane A7 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault, abuse,

and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

H. AMY LABADIE

503. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

504. Plaintiff Amy Labadie treated with Defendant Nassar in 2005 and 2006 at his office at

MSU and at Defendant Twistars’ facility.

505. In 2005 and 2006 Plaintiff Amy Labadie was a minor, approximately 16 years old to 17

years old.

506. Plaintiff Amy Labadie presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of back pain caused

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.68 15:55:43 Page Pg 6968 ofof 239238

by gymnastics.

507. Plaintiff Labadie is a former USAG member.

508. On at least two separate occasions during appointments at his office at MSU and on at least

one occasion at Defendant Twistars’ facility at a USAG sanctioned event, Defendant

Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Amy Labadie’s vagina and anus without prior notice

and without gloves or lubricant.

509. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Amy Labadie.

510. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Amy Labadie or from Amy Labadie’s parents even though she was a minor at the time.

511. Plaintiff Amy Labadie requested her medical records, however MSU could not locate a

paper chart documenting all of her appointments with Defendant Nassar.

512. The records MSU did produce were completely devoid of any reference to any type of

intra-vaginal procedure.

513. Plaintiff Amy Labadie did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

514. Plaintiff Amy Labadie was also sexually assaulted by Defendant Nassar in the same

manner described above at Twistars Gymnastics Club.

515. As a result of Defendant Nassar’s sexual assault, abuse, and molestation, Plaintiff Amy

Labadie developed a bacterial infection.

516. Following the September 12, 2016 publication of a story regarding a complaint filed with

MSU’s Police Department titled “Former USA Gymnastics doctor accused of Abuse,”

Plaintiff Amy Labadie made a complaint to MSU’s Police Department.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.69 15:55:43 Page Pg 7069 ofof 239238

Plaintiff Amy Labadie believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault, abuse,

and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

I. JANE A9 DOE by Next Friend JANE A10 DOE

517. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

518. Plaintiff Jane A9 Doe (minor) treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU in

approximately 2014 and 2016.

519. In 2014 and 2016, Plaintiff Jane A9 Doe was a minor, approximately 13 and 14 years old.

520. Plaintiff presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of hamstring pain as a result of

gymnastics.

521. Plaintiff Jane A9 Doe (minor) is a USAG member.

522. On approximately two or three occasions at appointments at his office at MSU, Defendant

Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Jane A9 Doe’s vagina without prior notice and without

gloves or lubricant, from 10 to 15 minutes at a time.

523. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Jane A9 Doe, Jane A10 Doe, or Jane A9 Doe’s father.

524. Plaintiff Jane A9 Doe’s medical records produced by MSU regarding her visits with

Defendant Nassar are completely devoid of any reference to any type of intra-vaginal

procedure.

525. Plaintiff Jane A9 Doe (minor) did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for

OB/GYN issues.

526. At an appointment in approximately April 2016, during an examination he pulled Jane A9

Doe’s shorts to the side and viewed her vagina and vaginal area.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.70 15:55:43 Page Pg 7170 ofof 239238

527. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiffs Jane A9 Doe or Jane A10 Doe.

528. It is believed some of the aforementioned sexual assaults occurred after MSU was notified

in 2014 of allegations of sexual abuse by Defendant Nassar during “treatments” with

athletes.

529. Following the September 12, 2016 publication of a story regarding a complaint filed with

MSU’s Police Department titled “Former USA Gymnastics doctor accused of Abuse,”

Plaintiff Jane A9 Doe made a complaint with MSU’s Police Department.

530. Plaintiffs Jane A9 Doe and Jane A10 Doe believe the conduct by Defendant Nassar was

sexual assault, abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-

gratification.

J. ALEXIS MOORE

531. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

532. Plaintiff Alexis Moore treated with Defendant Nassar from approximately 2002 to 2011.

533. From 2002 to 2011, Plaintiff Alexis Moore was a minor, approximately 9 to 17 years old.

534. Plaintiff Alexis Moore presented to Defendant with complaints of hip, tailbone, elbow pain

caused by gymnastics.

535. Plaintiff Moore is a former USAG member.

536. On several occasions at appointments at his office at MSU, Defendant Nassar digitally

penetrated Plaintiff Alexis Moore’s vagina without prior notice and without gloves or

lubricant.

537. Plaintiff Alexis Moore would undress to her underwear with a towel and Defendant Nassar

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.71 15:55:43 Page Pg 7271 ofof 239238

would put his hand in her underwear and digitally penetrate Plaintiff Alexis Moore’s

vagina.

538. Plaintiff Alexis Moore believes she had approximately 50 appointments with Defendant

Nassar from 2002 to 2011.

539. Defendant Nassar told Plaintiff Alexis Moore he performed the same “treatment” on

Olympic athletes.

540. Defendant Nassar also touched Plaintiff Alexis Moore’s breasts without permission, on

some occasions touching her over her sports bra, at other times under her sports bra, and at

other times telling her to take her sports bra off.

541. On one occasion, Defendant Nassar made inappropriate comments regarding his former

girlfriends while digitally penetrating Plaintiff Alexis Moore.

542. On one occasion Plaintiff Alexis Moore was assaulted at Defendant Nassar’s home in his

basement.

543. Defendant Nassar also touched Plaintiff Alexis Moore’s breasts indicating he was

attempting to manipulate Plaintiff Alexis Moore’s ribs, although she had no pain or injury

to her rib area.

544. During some sexual assaults at MSU, only Plaintiff Alexis Moore and Defendant Nassar

were in the examination room. There was no chaperone.

545. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Alexis Moore.

546. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Alexis Moore or from Alexis Moore’s parents even though she was a minor at the time.

547. Plaintiff Alexis Moore’s medical records produced by MSU regarding her visits with

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.72 15:55:43 Page Pg 7372 ofof 239238

Defendant Nassar are completely devoid of any reference to any type of intra-vaginal

procedure.

548. Plaintiff Alexis Moore did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

549. Plaintiff Alexis Moore believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault, abuse,

and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

K. JANE A20 DOE by Next Friend JANE A21 DOE

550. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

551. Plaintiff Jane A20 Doe treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU and other

locations from approximately 2015 to 2016.

552. From 2015 to 2016, Plaintiff Jane A20 Doe was a minor, approximately 12 years old.

553. Plaintiff Jane A20 Doe presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of low back pain as

a result of gymnastics.

554. Plaintiff Jane A20 Doe is a former USAG member.

555. On more than one occasion, approximately 20 to 30 times, at appointments at his office at

MSU and other locations, Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Jane A20 Doe’s

vagina and anus without prior notice and without gloves or lubricant.

556. Defendant Nassar would close his eyes and keep them closed while digitally penetrating

Plaintiff Jane A20 Doe and on some occasions his face seemed flushed.

557. Plaintiff Jane A21 Doe, the mother of Plaintiff Jane A20 Doe, observed Defendant Nassar

sexually aroused on more than one occasion at appointments at his office at MSU with Jane

A20 Doe.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.73 15:55:43 Page Pg 7473 ofof 239238

558. Defendant Nassar invited Jane A20 Doe and Jane A21 Doe to his home multiple times, yet

they declined his invitations.

559. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiffs Jane A20 Doe or Jane A21 Doe.

560. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Jane A20 Doe, Jane A21 Doe, or Jane A20 Doe’s father.

561. Plaintiff Jane A20 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

562. It is believed all of the aforementioned sexual assaults occurred after MSU was notified in

2014 of allegations of sexual abuse by Defendant Nassar during “treatments” with athletes.

563. Plaintiffs Jane A20 Doe and Jane A21 Doe believe the conduct by Defendant Nassar was

sexual assault, abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-

gratification.

L. VANASIA BRADLEY

564. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

565. Plaintiff Vanasia Bradley treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU, at USAG

sanctioned events, and at the Karolyi Ranch in Texas, from approximately 2012 to 2016.

566. From 2012 to 2016, Plaintiff Vanasia Bradley was a minor, approximately 13 to 17 years

old.

567. Plaintiff Vanasia Bradley presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of low back pain

and hamstring pain as a result of gymnastics.

568. Plaintiff Bradley is a former USAG member.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.74 15:55:43 Page Pg 7574 ofof 239238

569. On more than one occasion at appointments at his office at MSU, at USAG sanctioned

events, and at the Karolyi Ranch in Texas, Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff

Vanasia Bradley’s vagina without prior notice and without gloves or lubricant.

570. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Vanasia Bradley or Sherry Bradley.

571. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Plaintiff Vanasia Bradley, Sherry Bradley, or Vanasia Bradley’s father.

572. Plaintiff Vanasia Bradley’s medical records produced by MSU regarding her visits with

Defendant Nassar are completely devoid of any reference to any type of intra-vaginal

procedure.

573. Plaintiff Vanasia Bradley did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for

OB/GYN issues.

574. Sherry Bradley recently reported Defendant Nassar’s conduct to the MSU Police

Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

575. Plaintiff Vanasia Bradley and Sherry Bradley believe the conduct by Defendant Nassar

was sexual assault, abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-

gratification.

M. LINDSAY WOOLEVER

576. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

577. Plaintiff Lindsay Woolever treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU and USAG

sanctioned meets sponsored by Defendant Twistars from approximately 1999 to 2003.

578. From 1999 to 2003, Plaintiff Lindsay Woolever was a minor, approximately 14 to 17 years

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.75 15:55:43 Page Pg 7675 ofof 239238

old.

579. Plaintiff Lindsay Woolever presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of low back

pain, shin fractures, and associated pain as a result of gymnastics as well as injuries suffered

in a motor vehicle accident.

580. Plaintiff Woolever is a former USAG member.

581. On more than one occasion, between approximately 8 and 10 times, at appointments at his

office at MSU and at USAG sanctioned meets sponsored by Defendant Twistars,

Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Lindsay Woolever’s vagina and anus

without prior notice and without gloves or lubricant.

582. Defendant Nassar referred to his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a pelvic adjustment

to Plaintiff Lindsay Woolever.

583. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Lindsay Woolever, or Lindsay Woolever’s parents as she was a minor at the time.

584. Plaintiff Lindsay Woolever requested her medical records, however MSU could not locate

a paper chart documenting all of her appointments with Defendant Nassar.

585. The records MSU did produce were completely devoid of any reference to any type of

intra-vaginal procedure.

586. Plaintiff Lindsay Woolever did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for

OB/GYN issues.

587. Plaintiff Lindsay Woolever believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

N. KATELYN SKRABIS

588. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.76 15:55:43 Page Pg 7776 ofof 239238

paragraphs.

589. Plaintiff Katelyn Skrabis treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU between

approximately 2000 and 2001.

590. From 2000 to 2001, Plaintiff Katelyn Skrabis was a minor, approximately 14 years old.

591. Plaintiff Katelyn Skrabis presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of low back pain

as a result of gymnastics.

592. Plaintiff Skrabis is a former USAG member.

593. On one occasion at an appointment at his office at MSU, Defendant Nassar digitally

penetrated Plaintiff Katelyn Skrabis’s vagina without prior notice and without gloves or

lubricant for between 20 to 25 minutes at a time.

594. During the visits Plaintiff Katelyn Skrabis’s mother was in the room and Defendant Nassar

would position himself in a manner in which Plaintiff Katelyn Skrabis’s mother could not

see Defendant Nassar’s conduct.

595. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Katelyn Skrabis, or Katelyn Skrabis’s parents as she was a minor at the time.

596. Plaintiff Katelyn Skrabis did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

597. Following the September 12, 2016 publication of a story regarding a complaint filed with

MSU’s Police Department titled “Former USA Gymnastics doctor accused of Abuse,”

Plaintiff Katelyn Skrabis made a complaint to MSU’s Police Department.

598. Plaintiff Katelyn Skrabis believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

O. CHELSEA WILLIAMS

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.77 15:55:43 Page Pg 7877 ofof 239238

599. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

600. Plaintiff Chelsea Williams treated with Defendant Nassar in approximately 1999 and

between 2010 and 2012.

601. In 1999, Plaintiff Chelsea Williams was a minor, approximately 16 years old.

602. Plaintiff Williams is a former USAG member.

603. Plaintiff Chelsea Williams presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of low back

pain as a result of gymnastics at a USAG National Championship meet in Sacramento,

California.

604. At the USAG National Championship meet, on at least two occasions, Defendant Nassar

digitally penetrated Plaintiff Chelsea Williams’s vagina without prior notice and without

gloves or lubricant.

605. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Chelsea Williams, or Chelsea Williams’s parents as she was a minor at the time.

606. Between 2010 and 2012, Plaintiff Chelsea Williams presented to Defendant Nassar with

complaints of calf pain.

607. Between 2010 and 2012, on a monthly basis at his office at MSU, on approximately twenty

or more occasions, Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Chelsea Williams’s

vagina without prior notice and without gloves or lubricant.

608. Defendant Nassar made comments and jokes about oral sex while digitally penetrating

Plaintiff Chelsea Williams’s vagina.

609. On one occasion for treatment of her calf, Defendant Nassar examined Plaintiff Chelsea

Williams in a supply room at MSU at a late appointment, examined Plaintiff’s Chelsea

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.78 15:55:43 Page Pg 7978 ofof 239238

Williams’s rectum, abruptly left the room, and returned twenty minutes later without

comment or explanation.

610. Plaintiff Chelsea Williams’s medical records produced by MSU regarding her visits with

Defendant Nassar are completely devoid of any reference to any type of intra-vaginal

procedure.

611. Plaintiff Chelsea Williams did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for

OB/GYN issues.

612. Plaintiff Chelsea Williams believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

P. ASHLEY ERICKSON

613. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

614. Plaintiff Ashley Erickson treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU from

approximately 1999 to 2016.

615. From 1999 to 2006, Plaintiff Ashley Erickson was a minor, approximately 11 to 17 years

old.

616. Plaintiff Ashley Erickson presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of hip pain,

pelvic and groin pain, back pain and foot pain as a result of a broken foot due to gymnastics

and cheerleading.

617. Plaintiff Erickson is a former USAG member.

618. On over approximately 30 separate occasions, at appointments at his office at MSU

Defendant Nassar touched Plaintiff Ashley Erickson’s vaginal and rectal area and digitally

penetrated Plaintiff Ashley Erickson’s vagina without prior notice and without gloves or

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.79 15:55:43 Page Pg 8079 ofof 239238

lubricant for five to fifteen minutes at a time.

619. At times Defendant Nassar used his arm to massage against Plaintiff Ashley Erickson’s

vagina while digitally penetrating her vagina in an aggressive manner.

620. At times Defendant Nassar would tap or spank Ashley Erickson’s buttocks toward the end

of appointments and make inappropriate comments about her buttocks.

621. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Ashley Erickson.

622. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Ashley Erickson, or Ashley Erickson’s parents as she was a minor at the time.

623. Plaintiff Ashley Erickson treated with Defendant Nassar as an MSU student athlete on the

competitive cheerleading team.

624. Plaintiff Ashley Erickson did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for

OB/GYN issues.

625. Plaintiff Ashley Erickson believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

Q. JANE A31 DOE

626. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

627. Plaintiff Jane A31 Doe treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU from

approximately 2001 to 2008.

628. From 2001 to 2007, Plaintiff Jane A31 Doe was a minor, 11 years old to 17 years old.

629. Plaintiff Jane A31 Doe presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of knee pain and

general back pain as a result of gymnastics.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.80 15:55:43 Page Pg 8180 ofof 239238

630. Plaintiff Carpp is a former USAG member.

631. On one occasion, in approximately 2006 when Plaintiff was approximately 16 years old,

Defendant Nassar asked Plaintiff Jane A31 Doe if she shaved her vaginal area.

632. In 2008, Plaintiff was a student at MSU, participating in club gymnastics.

633. On at least one occasion in 2008 at an appointment at his office at MSU, Defendant Nassar

digitally penetrated Plaintiff Jane A31 Doe’s vagina without prior notice and without

gloves or lubricant for up to approximately five to fifteen minutes at a time.

634. On the occasion in 2008 described above, Plaintiff Jane A31 Doe’s mother was in the room,

however, Defendant Nassar positioned himself in a manner in which Plaintiff Jane A31

Doe’s mother could not see his conduct.

635. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Jane A31 Doe.

636. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Jane A31 Doe.

637. Plaintiff Jane A31 Doe’s medical records produced by MSU regarding her visits with

Defendant Nassar are completely devoid of any reference to any type of intra-vaginal

procedure.

638. Plaintiff Jane A31 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

639. Plaintiff Jane A31 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

R. JANE A32 DOE

640. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.81 15:55:43 Page Pg 8281 ofof 239238

paragraphs.

641. Plaintiff Jane A32 Doe treated with Defendant Nassar from 2013 to 2014.

642. From 2013 to 2014, Plaintiff was a minor, 15 years old.

643. Plaintiff Jane A32 Doe presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of back pain and

wrist pain as a result of gymnastics.

644. Plaintiff Jane A32 Doe is a former USAG member.

645. On at least three occasions at appointments at his office at MSU, Defendant Nassar digitally

penetrated Plaintiff Jane A32 Doe’s vagina without prior notice and without gloves or

lubricant for up to twenty minutes at a time multiple times during the same appointment.

646. One on occasion, Plaintiff Jane A32 Doe used a tampon to prevent Defendant Nassar from

digitally penetrating her vagina. Defendant Nassar attempted to digitally penetrate her

vagina, felt the tampon, and consequently stopped.

647. During the visits Plaintiff Jane A32 Doe’s father was in the room and Defendant Nassar

would position himself in a manner in which Plaintiff Jane A32 Doe’s father could not see

Defendant Nassar’s conduct.

648. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Jane A32 Doe.

649. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Jane A32 Doe, or Jane A32 Doe’s parents as she was a minor at the time.

650. Plaintiff Jane A32 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

651. Plaintiff Jane A32 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.82 15:55:43 Page Pg 8382 ofof 239238

S. JANE A33 DOE

652. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

653. Plaintiff Jane A33 Doe treated with Defendant Nassar in approximately 1998 or 1999.

654. In 1998 or 1999, Plaintiff Jane A33 Doe was a minor, 16 or 17 years old.

655. Plaintiff Jane A33 Doe presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of low back pain as

a result of gymnastics.

656. Plaintiff Denhollander is a former USAG member.

657. On one occasion at an appointment at his office at MSU, Defendant Nassar digitally

penetrated Plaintiff Jane A33 Doe’s vagina without prior notice and without gloves.

658. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Jane A33 Doe.

659. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Jane A33 Doe, or Jane A33 Doe’s parents as she was a minor at the time.

660. Plaintiff Jane A33 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

661. Plaintiff Jane A33 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

T. KASSIE POWELL

662. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

663. Plaintiff Kassie Powell treated with Defendant Nassar from approximately March 2010 to

June 2015.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.83 15:55:43 Page Pg 8483 ofof 239238

664. From 2010 to 2011, Plaintiff Kassie Powell was a minor, 16 to 17 years old.

665. Plaintiff Kassie Powell presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of low back pain

as a result of track and field.

666. Defendant Nassar gave her gifts such as an Olympic sweatshirt and an Olympic pin.

667. On several occasions, approximately more than 48 times, at various locations including his

office at MSU, the athletic training room at the Jenison Field House, and Defendant

Nassar’s home, Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Kassie Powell’s vagina

without prior notice and without gloves or lubricant for up to twenty minutes at a time,

multiple times during the same appointment.

668. On at least one occasion, Plaintiff Kassie Powell observed Defendant Nassar sexually

aroused while he was digitally penetrating Plaintiff Kassie Powell’s vagina.

669. At times Defendant Nassar would tap or spank Plaintiff Kassie Powell’s buttocks and tell

her to “flip over” during appointments.

670. Defendant Nassar would pull up her spandex shorts in order to digitally penetrate Plaintiff

Kassie Powell’s vagina.

671. On one occasion, Defendant Nassar told Plaintiff Kassie Powell her left side ribs were “out

of alignment” and put his hand under Plaintiff Kassie Powell’s sports bra and massaged

her left breast for approximately three to five minutes.

672. On one occasion in approximately May 2014, Defendant Nassar set up an appointment

with Plaintiff Kassie Powell by text message and told her to come to his home. Defendant

Nassar had an examination table set up in his backyard and digitally penetrated Plaintiff

Kassie Powell’s vagina.

673. Defendant Nassar frequently made comments about Plaintiff Kassie Powell’s buttocks and

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.84 15:55:43 Page Pg 8584 ofof 239238

told her she had a “cheerleader butt.”

674. Defendant Nassar also made comments regarding Plaintiff Kassie Powell’s pubic hair near

her vagina and buttocks and told her treatment would work better if she shaved.

675. Plaintiff also treated with Defendant Nassar while attending MSU as a track and field

athlete.

676. Defendant Nassar gave Plaintiff Kassie Powell his cellular telephone number and

instructed her to text him anytime she needed anything.

677. Defendant Nassar told Plaintiff Kassie Powell that she was saved in his phone as

“Superfreak.”

678. For a period of time in or around 2013, Plaintiff Kassie Powell was seeing Defendant

Nassar weekly due to low back pain. Plaintiff Kassie Powell would text him and Defendant

Nassar would instruct her to come in telling her he would “squeeze her in at the end of his

clinic.”

679. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Kassie Powell.

680. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Kassie Powell, or Kassie Powell’s parents during the time she was a minor.

681. Some of the sexual assaults occurred after the MSU Defendants were notified in 2014 of

allegations of sexual abuse by Defendant Nassar during “treatments” with athletes.

682. Plaintiff Kassie Powell’s medical records produced by Defendant MSU regarding her visits

with Defendant Nassar are completely devoid of any reference to any type of intra-vaginal

procedure.

683. Plaintiff Kassie Powell did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.85 15:55:43 Page Pg 8685 ofof 239238

issues.

684. On February 2, 2017, Plaintiff Kassie Powell made a complaint to Defendant MSU’s Police

Department.

685. Plaintiff Kassie Powell believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

U. TIFFANY DUTTON

686. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

687. Plaintiff Tiffany Dutton treated with Defendant Nassar in approximately 2002.

688. In 2002, Plaintiff Tiffany Dutton was a minor, 14 years old.

689. Plaintiff Tiffany Dutton presented to Defendant Nassar for low back pain and tailbone pain

as a result of gymnastics.

690. Plaintiff Dutton is a former USAG member.

691. On at least two occasions at his office at MSU, Defendant Nassar touched Plaintiff Tiffany

Dutton’s vaginal and rectal area without gloves, and digitally penetrated Plaintiff Tiffany

Dutton’s vagina at least twice without gloves and without lubricant.

692. At the time of the first assault, Defendant Nassar had her lay on her stomach. She was

shocked when without any warning or advanced notice Defendant Nassar digitally

penetrated her vagina.

693. Following her first appointment, Defendant Nassar requested that Plaintiff Tiffany Dutton

wear shorts or a leotard to her subsequent appointments.

694. During one of the assaults, Plaintiff Tiffany Dutton’s mother was trying to see what

Defendant Nassar was doing, but Defendant Nassar moved around to block her view.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.86 15:55:43 Page Pg 8786 ofof 239238

695. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Tiffany Dutton.

696. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent to touch Plaintiff Tiffany

Dutton’s vaginal or rectal area, or for vaginal penetration from Tiffany Dutton, or Tiffany

Dutton’s parents as she was a minor at the time.

697. Plaintiff Tiffany Dutton requested her medical records, however MSU could not locate a

paper chart documenting all of her appointments with Defendant Nassar.

698. The records MSU did produce were completely devoid of any reference to any type of

intra-vaginal procedure.

699. Plaintiff Tiffany Dutton did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

700. Plaintiff Tiffany Dutton believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

V. JAIME DOSKI

701. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

702. Plaintiff Jaime Doski treated with Defendant Nassar from approximately 1997 to 2003, and

2013.

703. From 1997 to 2003, Plaintiff Jaime Doski was a minor, 12 to 17 years old.

704. Throughout high school, Plaintiff Jaime Doski presented to Defendant Nassar for general

back pain as a result of gymnastics.

705. Plaintiff Doski is a former USAG member.

706. On several occasions between 1997 and 2003, and on at least two occasions in 2013, at his

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.87 15:55:43 Page Pg 8887 ofof 239238

office at MSU and at gymnastics meets held throughout Michigan, Defendant Nassar

digitally penetrated Plaintiff Jaime Doski’s vagina without prior notice and without gloves

or lubricant.

707. During some visits at MSU, Plaintiff Jaime Doski’s father was present and Defendant

Nassar would position himself in a manner in which Plaintiff Jaime Doski’s father could

not see Defendant Nassar’s conduct.

708. At the gymnastics meets, Defendant Nassar would take Plaintiff Jaime Doski to a secluded

location, away from others attending the meet, and would digitally penetrate Plaintiff Jaime

Doski’s vagina while no other individual was present.

709. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Jaime Doski.

710. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Jaime Doski, or Jaime Doski’s parents as she was a minor at the time.

711. Plaintiff Jaime Doski did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

712. Plaintiff Jaime Doski believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault, abuse,

and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

W. JANE A38 DOE

713. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

714. Plaintiff Jane A38 Doe treated with Defendant Nassar from approximately 2005 to 2014

or 2015.

715. From 2005 to 2013, Plaintiff Jane A38 Doe was a minor, 10 to 17 years old.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.88 15:55:43 Page Pg 8988 ofof 239238

716. Plaintiff Jane A38 Doe presented to Defendant Nassar for back pain caused by gymnastics.

717. Plaintiff Jane A38 Doe is a former USAG member.

718. Plaintiff Jane A38 Doe is a former Twistars member.

719. On multiple occasions, between 2005 to 2014 or 2015, at various locations including but

not limited to his office at MSU, Defendant Twistars’ facility, and Defendant Nassar’s

residence, Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Jane A38 Doe’s vagina and anus

without prior notice and without gloves for several minutes at a time.

720. When Plaintiff visited Defendant Nassar’s home, he gave her gifts including an Olympic

jacket.

721. On one occasion, Plaintiff Jane A38 Doe’s mother observed Defendant Nassar “treating”

Plaintiff Jane A38 Doe and asked him what he was doing. Defendant Nassar gave an

explanation she did not understand. He did not explain that he was using vaginal or anal

penetration.

722. On that same occasion, Plaintiff Jane A38 Doe’s mother stood up and moved to attempt to

see what Defendant Nassar was doing and Defendant Nassar moved to block her view.

723. On another occasion, Plaintiff Jane A38 Doe’s mother observed Defendant Nassar

touching different parts of Plaintiff Jane A38 Doe’s body including her feet and legs and

asked him why he wasn’t using gloves. Defendant Nassar did not provide an explanation

and was dismissive of her question.

724. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Jane A38 Doe, or Jane A38 Doe’s parents as she was a minor at the time.

725. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Jane A38 Doe or Jane A38 Doe’s parents.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.89 15:55:43 Page Pg 9089 ofof 239238

726. Plaintiff Jane A38 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

727. Plaintiff Jane A38 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

X. GWEN ANDERSON

728. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

729. Plaintiff Gwen Anderson treated with Defendant Nassar from approximately 1997 to 2006.

730. From 1997 to 2003 Plaintiff Gwen Anderson was a minor, 13 to 17 years old.

731. Plaintiff Gwen Anderson presented to Defendant Nassar for low back pain and knee pain

caused by gymnastics.

732. Plaintiff Anderson is a former USAG member.

733. On approximately two to three occasions, in approximately 1997 and 1998 at his office at

MSU, Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Gwen Anderson’s vagina without

prior notice and without gloves for approximately one to two minutes at a time.

734. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Gwen Anderson or Gwen Anderson’s parents as she was a minor at the time.

735. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Gwen Anderson or Gwen Anderson’s parents.

736. Plaintiff Gwen Anderson did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for

OB/GYN issues.

737. Plaintiff Gwen Anderson believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.90 15:55:43 Page Pg 9190 ofof 239238

Y. JENELLE MOUL

738. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

739. Plaintiff Jenelle Moul treated with Defendant Nassar from approximately 1997 to 2006.

740. In 2003, Plaintiff Jenelle Moul presented to Defendant Nassar for low back pain caused by

gymnastics.

741. Plaintiff Moul is a former USAG member.

742. While competing in collegiate gymnastics at a university in Michigan, on approximately

one occasion in 2003 at his office at MSU, Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff

Jenelle Moul’s vagina without prior notice, lubricant, or gloves.

743. Defendant Nassar had Plaintiff Jenelle Moul lay down to try to recreate the pain she was

experiencing, and then he digitally penetrated her vagina without notice or explanation.

744. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Jenelle Moul.

745. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Jenelle Moul.

746. Plaintiff Jenelle Moul did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

747. Plaintiff Jenelle Moul believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault, abuse,

and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

Z. AMANDA BARTERIAN

748. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.91 15:55:43 Page Pg 9291 ofof 239238

749. Plaintiff Amanda Barterian treated with Defendant Nassar from approximately 1994 to

2001.

750. From 1994 to 2001, Plaintiff Amanda Barterian was a minor, 9 to 15 years old.

751. Plaintiff Amanda Barterian presented to Defendant Nassar for back pain as a result of

gymnastics.

752. Plaintiff Barterian is a former USAG member.

753. Plaintiff Amanda Barterian first met Defendant Nassar at a gymnastics meet.

754. For a period of time, Plaintiff Amanda Barterian saw Defendant Nassar weekly at his office

at MSU.

755. On multiple occasions, at his office at MSU Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff

Amanda Barterian’s vagina without prior notice and without gloves or lubricant.

756. On one occasion, when Plaintiff was not competing but attending a meet as a spectator at

Twistars, she “treated” with Defendant Nassar and on that occasion he digitally penetrated

Plaintiff Amanda Barterian’s vagina without prior notice and without gloves or lubricant.

757. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Amanda Barterian or Amanda Barterian’s parents.

758. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Plaintiff Amanda Barterian or Amanda Barterian’s parents as Amanda Barterian was a

minor at the time.

759. Plaintiff Amanda Barterian did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for

OB/GYN issues.

760. Plaintiff Amanda Barterian believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.92 15:55:43 Page Pg 9392 ofof 239238

AA. TARYN AKEMI LOOK

761. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

762. Plaintiff Taryn Akemi Look treated with Defendant Nassar from approximately 2000 to

2001.

763. From 2000 to 2001 Plaintiff Taryn Akemi Look was a minor, 14 to 15 years old.

764. Plaintiff Taryn Akemi Look presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of pain in her

foot, ankle, shins, and lower back as a result of gymnastics.

765. Plaintiff Look is a former USAG member.

766. On one occasion at an appointment at his office at MSU Defendant Nassar digitally

penetrated Plaintiff Taryn Akemi Look’s vagina without prior notice and without gloves

or lubricant.

767. Immediately prior to the digital penetration, Defendant Nassar asked Plaintiff Taryn Akemi

Look to demonstrate a back leg grab split move.

768. During the visit Plaintiff Taryn Akemi Look’s mother was in the room and Defendant

Nassar positioned himself in a manner in which Plaintiff Taryn Akemi Look’s mother

could not see Defendant Nassar’s conduct.

769. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Taryn Akemi Look, or Taryn Akemi Look’s parents as she was a minor at the time.

770. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Taryn Akemi Look or Plaintiff Taryn Akemi Look’s parents as she

was a minor at the time.

771. Plaintiff Taryn Akemi Look did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.93 15:55:43 Page Pg 9493 ofof 239238

OB/GYN issues.

772. Plaintiff Taryn Akemi Look believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

BB. N.W. (MINOR) by Next Friend R.W.

773. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

774. Plaintiff N.W. (minor) treated with Defendant Nassar from approximately 2011 to 2016.

775. From 2011 to 2016 Plaintiff N.W. (minor) was a minor, 10 to 14 years old.

776. Plaintiff N.W. (minor) presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of pain in her back,

tailbone, groin, shoulder, and foot as a result of gymnastics and other recreational sports.

777. Plaintiff N.W. (minor) is a former USAG member.

778. Plaintiff N.W. (minor) is a former Twistars member.

779. On at least approximately three occasions at appointments at his office at MSU and at other

locations, Defendant Nassar touched Plaintiff N.W. (minor)’s vaginal area without prior

notice and without gloves or lubricant.

780. On multiple occasions, when Plaintiff N.W. (minor) sought treatment for issues with her

shoulder Defendant Nassar would ask her to remove her shirt and would grab and massage

her breasts while she was only wearing a sports bra.

781. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent to touch her breasts or vaginal

area from N.W. (minor), R.W., or N.W. (minor)’s father as she was a minor at the time.

782. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff N.W. (minor), Plaintiff R.W. or Plaintiff N.W. (minor)’s father as

she was a minor at the time.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.94 15:55:43 Page Pg 9594 ofof 239238

783. Plaintiff N.W. (minor) and Plaintiff R.W. believe the conduct by Defendant Nassar was

sexual assault, abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-

gratification.

784. In March 2017, Plaintiff N.W. (minor) made a complaint regarding Defendant Nassar to

MSU’s Police Department.

CC. JANE A50 DOE

785. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

786. Plaintiff Jane A50 Doe treated with Defendant Nassar from approximately 2010 to 2016.

787. From 2010 to 2016, Plaintiff Jane A50 Doe was a minor, 11 to 17 years old.

788. Plaintiff Jane A50 Doe was 18 years old when she last treated with Defendant Nassar in

July 2016,

789. Plaintiff presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of back, hamstring, knee, and

shoulder pain as a result of gymnastics.

790. Plaintiff Jane A50 Doe is a former USAG member.

791. Plaintiff Jane A50 Doe is a former Twistars member.

792. On over one hundred occasions, at appointments at his office at MSU, at Twistars, and at

his residence Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Jane A50 Doe’s vagina and

anus without notice, gloves, or lubricants.

793. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Jane A50 Doe or Jane A50 Doe’s parents.

794. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Plaintiff Jane A50 Doe or Jane A50 Doe’s parents as Jane A50 Doe was a minor at the

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.95 15:55:43 Page Pg 9695 ofof 239238

time.

795. Plaintiff Jane A50 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

796. Plaintiff Jane A50 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

DD. JANE A52 DOE by Next Friend JANE A53 DOE

797. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

798. From 2007 to the present date, Plaintiff Jane A52 Doe was a minor, and in or around 2015

or 2016 Plaintiff Jane A52 Doe was approximately 9 or 10 years old.

799. From approximately 2007 to 2016, Plaintiff Jane A52 Doe visited Defendant Nassar’s

residence.

800. Plaintiff Jane A52 Doe and her parents were aware Defendant Nassar was a medical

professional at MSU as he provided medical care to her at her home for minor illnesses

and ailments.

801. Plaintiff Jane A52 Doe was a gymnast and participated in gymnastics at Twistars for a

short period of time.

802. Defendant Nassar would give Plaintiff Jane A52 Doe gifts such as Olympic pencil holders,

towels, and other mementos.

803. On some occasions, Plaintiff Jane A52 Doe observed Defendant Nassar working with

patients in his back yard.

804. In 2015 or 2016, on at least one occasion Defendant Nassar attempted to pull Plaintiff Jane

A52 Doe’s bathing suit down and “tickle” her, as well as other actions sexual in nature.

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.96 15:55:43 Page Pg 9796 ofof 239238

805. Defendant Nassar did not have consent to touch Plaintiff Jane A52 Doe from Jane A53

Doe or Jane A52 Doe’s father as she was a minor at the time.

806. Plaintiff Jane A52 Doe and Plaintiff Jane A53 Doe believe the conduct by Defendant

Nassar was sexual assault, abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and

self-gratification.

EE. JANE A55 DOE

807. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

808. Plaintiff Jane A55 Doe treated with Defendant Nassar from approximately 1997 to 2003.

809. From 1997 to 2003, Plaintiff Jane A55 Doe was a minor, approximately 12 to 17 years old.

810. Plaintiff Jane A55 Doe presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of back pain.

811. Plaintiff Jane A55 Doe is a former USAG member.

812. On one occasion in approximately 1997 at an appointment at his office at MSU, Defendant

Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Jane A55 Doe’s vagina without prior notice, gloves or

lubricant.

813. Plaintiff Jane A55 Doe jumped when he penetrated her vagina as she had not been touched

in her vaginal area, and in response Defendant Nassar commented that he knew that felt “a

little different.”

814. Plaintiff Jane A55 Doe’s mother was in the room at the time, however, Defendant Nassar

positioned himself in a way so that she could not see his conduct.

815. Defendant Nassar did not obtain consent for digital penetration from Plaintiff Jane A55

Doe or Plaintiff Jane A55 Doe’s parents as she was a minor at the time.

816. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.97 15:55:43 Page Pg 9897 ofof 239238

procedure to Plaintiff Jane A55 Doe or Plaintiff Jane A55 Doe’s parents.

817. Plaintiff Jane A55 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

818. Plaintiff Jane A55 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

FF. KATHERINE BLACK

819. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

820. Plaintiff Katherine Black treated with Defendant Nassar from approximately 2011 to 2016.

821. From 2011 to 2016, Plaintiff Katherine Black was a minor, 13 to 17 years old.

822. Plaintiff presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of back and ankle pain as a result

of gymnastics.

823. Plaintiff Black is a former USAG member.

824. At times, Defendant Nassar would take Plaintiff Katherine Black’s shirt off and he would

touch Plaintiff’s Katherine Black’s breast area and breasts.

825. At some appointments Defendant Nassar would require her to change into loose fitting

shorts that he provided.

826. Defendant Nassar told Plaintiff Katherine Black to do Kegel exercises and felt to see if she

was doing them correctly.

827. Members of Plaintiff Katherine Black’s family would be present at appointments, but

Defendant Nassar would position himself in a manner in which Plaintiff Katherine Black’s

family members could not see his conduct.

828. On at least one occasion, Defendant Nassar asked Plaintiff Katherine Black’s father to

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.98 15:55:43 Page Pg 9998 ofof 239238

leave the examination room, leaving Defendant Nassar and Plaintiff Katherine Black alone.

829. At appointments where Plaintiff Katherine Black was seeking treatment for ankle issues,

Defendant Nassar would always ask if her back hurt.

830. Defendant Nassar did not obtain consent to touch Plaintiff Katherine Black ’s vaginal area

or vagina from Plaintiff Katherine Black or Plaintiff Katherine Black ’s parents as she was

a minor at the time.

831. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Katherine Black or Plaintiff Katherine Black’s parents.

832. Plaintiff Katherine Black did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for

OB/GYN issues.

833. Plaintiff Katherine Black believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

GG. MELISSA VIGOGNE

834. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

835. Plaintiff Melissa Vigogne treated with Defendant Nassar in or around 1999 and 2002.

836. Plaintiff Melissa Vigogne suffered neck and back injuries as a result of a car accident in

1999.

837. Plaintiff Melissa Vigogne, sought treatment from Defendant Nassar after her gymnastics

coaches spoke with Defendant Nassar at the Karolyi Ranch about her injuries.

838. Plaintiff Vigogne is a former USAG member.

839. Plaintiff Melissa Vigogne traveled from Florida to Michigan and treated with Defendant

Nassar in 1999 at his office at MSU.

CaseCase 19-500121:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD 09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.99 15:55:43 Page Pg 100 99 ofof 238239

840. At the appointment in 1999, Defendant Nassar requested she remove all her clothing for

the appointment.

841. In 2002, after suffering injuries to her hip, neck, and back in a second car accident, Plaintiff

Melissa Vigogne again sought treatment from Defendant Nassar.

842. Defendant Nassar advised Plaintiff Melissa Vigogne to travel to the USAG National

Championships in Cleveland, Ohio in August 2002 for treatment, which she did.

843. Defendant Nassar treated Plaintiff Melissa Vigogne in the training room of the competition

arena for three days.

844. For the first two days Plaintiff Melissa Vigogne’s mother was present during each

treatment.

845. After two days of treatment, Defendant Nassar requested that Plaintiff Melissa Vigogne

change her flight home to Florida so he could have additional time to finish the “treatment”

telling her he had made progress but needed more time.

846. Plaintiff Melissa Vigogne was able to change her travel plans, however, it was not possible

for Plaintiff Melissa Vigogne’s mother to do so.

847. Therefore, on the third day of treatment, Plaintiff Melissa Vigogne’s mother was not

present, and there was no chaperone in the treatment room.

848. On all three days Defendant Nassar requested Plaintiff Melissa Vigogne be naked from the

waist down and that she lay face down on the training table.

849. However, on the third day when Plaintiff Melissa Vigogne’s mother was not present,

Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Melissa Vigogne’s vagina without prior

notice, gloves, or lubricant.

850. While Defendant Nassar penetrated Plaintiff Melissa Vigogne’s vagina, he stated that the

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.100 15:55:43 Page Pg 101 100 of of 239 238

girls trusted him.

851. Although Defendant Nassar did not mention names, Plaintiff Melissa Vigogne understood

his reference to “the girls” to mean famous Olympic gymnasts.

852. Defendant Nassar’s comment also led Plaintiff Melissa Vigogne to believe his conduct and

“treatment” must have been okay and normal if Olympic gymnasts trusted and allowed

Defendant Nassar to engage in the same conduct with them.

853. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent from Plaintiff Melissa

Vigogne to touch Plaintiff Melissa Vigogne’s vaginal area or for vaginal penetration.

854. Plaintiff Melissa Vigogne did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for

OB/GYN issues.

855. Plaintiff Melissa Vigogne believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

HH. JANE A59 DOE

856. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

857. Plaintiff Jane A59 Doe treated with Defendant Nassar in or around 2000 and 2002.

858. Plaintiff Jane A59 Doe was a minor in 2000 and 2002, approximately 13 and 15 years old.

859. Plaintiff Jane A59 Doe sought treatment from Defendant Nassar for injuries to her hips

(2000) and back (2002) as a result of gymnastics.

860. Plaintiff Jane A59 Doe is a former USAG member.

861. Defendant Nassar diagnosed Plaintiff Jane A59 Doe with pre-fractures and bursitis.

862. On several occasions at appointments at his office at MSU, Defendant Nassar touched

Plaintiff Jane A59 Doe’s pelvic area near her genitals without gloves.

100

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.101 15:55:43 Page Pg 102 101 of of 239 238

863. Plaintiff Jane A59 Doe believes the touching was inappropriate and unnecessary as she

believes her diagnoses largely required rest.

864. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent to touch Plaintiff Jane A59

Doe’s pelvic area near her genitals from Plaintiff Jane A59 Doe or Plaintiff Jane A59 Doe’s

parents as Plaintiff Jane A59 Doe was a minor at the time.

865. Defendant Nassar did not explain his touching and conduct as a medical procedure to

Plaintiff Jane A59 Doe or Plaintiff Jane A59 Doe’s parents.

866. Plaintiff Jane A59 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

867. Plaintiff Jane A59 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

II. ALEXANDRA ROMANO

868. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

869. Plaintiff Alexandra Romano treated with Defendant Nassar from approximately 2006 to

2010.

870. Plaintiff Alexandra Romano was a minor from 2006 to 2010, approximately 12 to 16 years

old.

871. Plaintiff Alexandra Romano sought treatment from Defendant Nassar for injuries to her

back as a result of gymnastics.

872. Plaintiff Romano is a former USAG member.

873. Defendant Nassar told Plaintiff Alexandra Romano he was going to “fix her back” because

her “spine was twisted.”

101

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.102 15:55:43 Page Pg 103 102 of of 239 238

874. On at least approximately two occasions at appointments at his office at MSU, Defendant

Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Alexandra Romano’s anus without notice, gloves, or

lubricant.

875. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital anal penetration

from Plaintiff Alexandra Romano or Plaintiff Alexandra Romano’s parents as she was a

minor at the time.

876. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct as a medical procedure to Plaintiff Alexandra

Romano or Plaintiff Alexandra Romano’s parents.

877. Plaintiff Alexandra Romano’s medical records produced by MSU regarding her visits with

Defendant Nassar are completely devoid of any reference to any type of intra-rectal

procedure.

878. Plaintiff Alexandra Romano did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for

OB/GYN issues.

879. Plaintiff Alexandra Romano believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

880. In fall 2016, Plaintiff Alexandra Romano Doe made a complaint regarding Defendant

Nassar to MSU’s Police Department.

JJ. JANE A64 DOE

881. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

882. Plaintiff Jane A64 Doe was an elite gymnast and competed for Defendant USAG as a

Junior Olympic National Team member.

883. Plaintiff Jane A64 Doe attended camps at the Karolyi Ranch from approximately 2001 to

102

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.103 15:55:43 Page Pg 104 103 of of 239 238

2003.

884. Plaintiff Jane A64 Doe is a former USAG member.

885. From 2001 to 2003, Plaintiff Jane A64 Doe was a minor, approximately 13 to 15 years old.

886. Prior to attending the camps, Plaintiff Jane A64 Doe suffered a stress fracture in her back

and tore both of her hamstrings.

887. While at the camps at the Karolyi ranch she was sent to Defendant Nassar for treatment.

888. At this time, Defendant Nassar was employed by MSU as an Assistant Professor and part

of his duties included participation in “Outreach” and “Community Activities,” which

included but was not limited to his involvement with Defendant USAG.

889. On approximately one occasion, in a lounge where camp attendees would often watch

television, Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Jane A64 Doe’s vagina without

gloves or lubricant for up to 10 minutes.

890. Before the digital penetration, Defendant Nassar made a statement to Plaintiff Jane A64

Doe to the effect of, “this might feel weird, but it’s part of the treatment.”

891. However, Defendant Nassar did not explain that he was going to engage in digital

penetration before doing so.

892. Several years later, while attending college, Plaintiff Jane A64 Doe disclosed Defendant

Nassar’s conduct to a counselor at the college’s counseling center.

893. To the best of Plaintiff Jane A64 Doe knowledge, no action was taken regarding her

allegations against Defendant Nassar.

894. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Jane A64 Doe or Plaintiff Jane A64 Doe’s parents as she was a minor

at the time.

103

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.104 15:55:43 Page Pg 105 104 of of 239 238

895. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Jane A64 Doe or Jane A64 Doe’s parents as she was a minor at the time.

896. Plaintiff Jane A64 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

897. Plaintiff Jane A64 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

KK. JANE A65 DOE

898. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

899. Plaintiff Jane A65 Doe was a junior elite gymnast from approximately 1998 to 2002.

900. Plaintiff Jane A65 Doe attended camps at the Karolyi Ranch from in or around 1998 and

2002.

901. From 1998 to 2002, Plaintiff Jane A65 Doe was a minor, approximately 8 to 12 years old.

902. While attending camps at the Karolyi Ranch, Plaintiff presented to Defendant Nassar with

complaints of low back pain as a result of gymnastics.

903. Plaintiff Jane A65 Doe is a former USAG member.

904. At this time, Defendant Nassar was employed by MSU as an Assistant Professor and part

of his duties included participation in “Outreach” and “Community Activities,” which

included but was not limited to his involvement with Defendant USAG.

905. On approximately one or two occasions, Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff

Jane A65 Doe’s vagina without gloves or lubricant for several minutes.

906. During the digital penetration, Defendant Nassar asked Plaintiff Jane A65 Doe to look at a

picture of his family.

104

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.105 15:55:43 Page Pg 106 105 of of 239 238

907. During the sexual assault, only Plaintiff Jane A65 Doe and Defendant Nassar were in the

examination room. There was no chaperone.

908. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Jane A65 Doe or Plaintiff Jane A65 Doe’s parents as she was a minor

at the time.

909. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Jane A65 Doe or Jane A65 Doe’s parents as she was a minor at the time.

910. Plaintiff Jane A65 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

911. Plaintiff Jane A65 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

LL. JANE A66 DOE

912. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

913. Plaintiff Jane A66 Doe attended camp at the Karolyi Ranch from in May 2001 for

approximately two weeks.

914. In 2001, Plaintiff Jane A66 Doe was a minor, approximately 16 years old.

915. While attending camps at the Karolyi Ranch, Plaintiff Jane A66 Doe presented to

Defendant Nassar with complaints of low back sciatic pain as a result of gymnastics.

916. Plaintiff Jane A66 Doe is a former USAG member.

917. At this time, Defendant Nassar was employed by MSU as an Assistant Professor and part

of his duties included participation in “Outreach” and “Community Activities” which

included but was not limited to his involvement with Defendant USAG.

105

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.106 15:55:43 Page Pg 107 106 of of 239 238

918. For the first four days of camp, Plaintiff Jane A66 Doe was accompanied by her gymnastics

coach from her home gym during appointments with Defendant Nassar.

919. During the time Plaintiff Jane A66 Doe was chaperoned by her coach, Plaintiff Jane A66

Doe received treatment from Defendant Nassar similar to that which she had previously

experienced in her home state which did not include any digital vaginal penetration.

920. Plaintiff Jane A66 Doe’s coach left the Karolyi camp, and Plaintiff Jane A66 Doe continued

to treat with Defendant Nassar for increased sciatic pain.

921. During the final week Plaintiff Jane A66 Doe was at the Karolyi Ranch without a

chaperone, on approximately six to seven occasions, Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated

Plaintiff Jane A66 Doe’s vagina without gloves or lubricant.

922. Defendant Nassar told Plaintiff Jane A66 Doe that he needed release the muscles in her

back by going inside her vagina and that the pressure points could only be released by

pushing them with his fingers inside her vagina.

923. Following the first instance of digital penetration, Defendant Nassar told Plaintiff Jane A66

Doe not to wear underwear for future treatments.

924. Defendant Nassar did not give obtain consent for digital penetration from Jane A66 Doe’s

parents as she was a minor at the time.

925. Plaintiff Jane A66 Doe does not believe the digital penetration provided any relief for her

back pain.

926. Plaintiff Jane A66 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

927. Plaintiff Jane A66 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

106

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.107 15:55:43 Page Pg 108 107 of of 239 238

MM. EMILY GOETZ

928. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

929. Plaintiff Emily Goetz was an international elite gymnast and competed at USAG

sanctioned events from approximately1994 to 2001.

930. From 1994 to 2001, Plaintiff Emily Goetz was a minor, approximately 8 to 15 years old.

931. In or around 2000, Plaintiff attended a USAG sanctioned event in Tulsa, Oklahoma and

injured her hamstring.

932. Plaintiff Goetz is a former USAG member.

933. At this time, Defendant Nassar was employed by MSU as an Assistant Professor and part

of his duties included participation in “Outreach” and “Community Activities,” which

included but was not limited to his involvement with Defendant USAG.

934. On approximately one occasion, at the USAG meet in Tulsa, Defendant Nassar digitally

penetrated Plaintiff Emily Goetz’s vagina without gloves or lubricant.

935. Defendant Nassar did not explain that he was going to engage in digital penetration before

doing so.

936. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Emily Goetz or Plaintiff Emily Goetz’s parents as she was a minor

at the time.

937. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Emily Goetz or Emily Goetz’s parents as she was a minor at the time.

938. Plaintiff Emily Goetz did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

107

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.108 15:55:43 Page Pg 109 108 of of 239 238

939. Plaintiff Emily Goetz believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault, abuse,

and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

NN. MARGARET NICHOLS

940. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

941. Plaintiff Margaret Nichols trained and competed as an elite gymnast as a member of the

USA Gymnastics National Team from approximately 2013 to 2016.

942. As a member of the USAG National Team, Plaintiff Margaret Nichols trained at the

Karolyi Ranch in Texas from 2013 to 2016.

943. Plaintiff Nichols is a former USAG member.

944. From 2013 to 2015, Plaintiff Margaret Nichols was a minor, approximately 15 to 17 years

old.

945. During this time, Defendant Nassar was employed by MSU as an Assistant Professor and

part of his duties included participation in “Outreach” and “Community Activities,” which

included but were not limited to his involvement with Defendant USAG.

946. Plaintiff Margaret Nichols presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of sprains,

injuries, and soreness suffered as a result of gymnastics training.

947. On approximately 20 occasions, in the “end room” at the Karolyi Ranch, Defendant Nassar

digitally penetrated Plaintiff Margaret Nichols’s vagina without prior notice, gloves, or

lubricant.

948. Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Margaret Nichols’s vagina, moved his

fingers around in her vagina, and left them in her vagina for several minutes at a time.

949. At no time was there a chaperon present for any of Plaintiff Margaret Nichols’s

108

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.109 15:55:43 Page Pg 110 109 of of 239 238

appointments with Defendant Nassar.

950. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Margaret Nichols or Plaintiff Margaret Nichols’ parents.

951. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Plaintiff Margaret Nichols or Plaintiff Margaret Nichols’s parents.

952. Plaintiff Margaret Nichols did not intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

953. In or around June 2015, while training at the Karolyi Ranch, Plaintiff Margaret Nichols

discussed Defendant Nassar’s conduct with another USAG National Team member.

954. An adult overheard the conversation and asked Plaintiff Margaret Nichols for additional

information.

955. The adult reported Defendant Nassar’s misconduct to Defendant USAG officials and

Plaintiff Margaret Nichols’s parents.

956. Defendant Nassar’s misconduct was reported to Defendant USAG’s immediate past

President Steve Penny, among other officials.

957. On multiple occasions Mr. Penny discouraged Plaintiff Margaret Nichols’s parents from

reporting Defendant Nassar’s conduct to law enforcement and pressured them to keep the

matter quiet.

958. Plaintiff Margaret Nichols believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

OO. JANE A71 DOE

959. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

109

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.110 15:55:43 Page Pg 111 110 of of 239 238

960. Plaintiff Jane A71 Doe treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU and at Twistars

from approximately 1996 to 2000.

961. From 1996 to 2000, Plaintiff Jane A71 Doe was a minor, approximately 10 to 14 years old.

962. Plaintiff Jane A71 Doe presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of back pain as a

result of gymnastics.

963. Plaintiff Jane A71 Doe is a former USAG member.

964. Plaintiff Jane A71 Doe is a former Twistars member.

965. From 1996 to 2000, at appointments at his office at MSU and once at Twistars, Defendant

Nassar touched Plaintiff Jane A71 Doe’s vagina and vaginal area without prior notice and

without gloves or lubricant.

966. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as “treatment” as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Jane A71 Doe or Plaintiff Jane A71 Doe’s parents as she was a minor

at the time.

967. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve touching of Jane A71 Doe’s

vagina and vaginal area to Plaintiff Jane A71 Doe or Jane A71 Doe’s parents.

968. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice that he would touch Jane A71 Doe’s

vagina/vaginal area or obtain consent from Jane A71 Doe or Jane A71 Doe’s parents to do

so.

969. On one occasion Defendant Nassar made an inappropriate comment regarding the size of

Plaintiff Jane A71 Doe’s breasts.

970. Defendant Nassar went on to say he could “do something” about it and suggested he could

get MSU to pay for a breast reduction if he said her breasts were causing Plaintiff Jane A71

Doe’s back problems.

110

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.111 15:55:43 Page Pg 112 111 of of 239 238

971. After being assaulted at Twistars in or around 1998, Plaintiff Jane A71 Doe, at

approximately 12 years old, told a coach at Twistars Defendant Nassar was being

inappropriate and doing inappropriate things.

972. In response, the coach told Plaintiff Jane A71 Doe Defendant Nassar “wouldn’t do that.”

973. To the best of Plaintiff Jane A71 Doe’s knowledge, belief, and understanding, the coach at

Twistars took no steps to investigate or report Defendant Nassar’s conduct.

974. Plaintiff Jane A71 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

975. Plaintiff Jane A71 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

PP. J.S. (MINOR) by next friend A.S.

976. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

977. Plaintiff J.S. (minor) treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU and at his

residence from approximately 2009 to 2016.

978. From approximately 2009 to 2016, Plaintiff J.S. (minor) was a minor, 8 to 14 years old.

979. Plaintiff J.S. (minor) presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of back pain, and

injuries to her quadriceps and groin as a result of gymnastics.

980. Plaintiff J.S. (minor) is a former USAG member.

981. On several different occasions, Defendant Nassar gave gifts to Plaintiff J.S. (minor).

982. On approximately fifty occasions at appointments at his office at MSU and at his residence,

Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff J.S. (minor)’s vagina without prior notice

and without gloves.

111

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.112 15:55:43 Page Pg 113 112 of of 239 238

983. At times, Defendant Nassar covered Plaintiff J.S. (minor) with a sheet preventing Plaintiff

A.S. from observing Defendant Nassar’s hand placement.

984. On some occasions, Plaintiff J.S. (minor) was instructed to call or text Defendant Nassar

at his office at MSU and she would be given entrance to the building through a back door.

985. On one occasion, Plaintiff A.S. asked Defendant Nassar about a glide on lubricant for

Plaintiff J.S. (minor)’s wrists. Defendant Nassar responded he had previously developed

one himself that male gymnasts referred to as the “love glove” implying they used it for

sexual purposes.

986. Plaintiff J.S. (minor) underwent an MRI for her groin injury which came back negative for

fractures.

987. Although it is believed the MRI was negative for fractures, Defendant Nassar told Plaintiff

J.S. (minor) she had a fractured pubis and continued intra-vaginal digital penetration.

988. Defendant Nassar did not explain his “treatment” would involve intra-vaginal digital

penetration to Plaintiff J.S. (minor) or J.S. (minor)’s parents.

989. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

J.S. (minor) or J.S. (minor)’s parents.

990. Defendant Nassar told Plaintiff J.S. (minor) he retired from his duties with Defendant

USAG although Defendant USAG relieved Defendant Nassar of his duties after receiving

allegations of “athlete concern.”

991. Plaintiff J.S. (minor) did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

992. Plaintiff J.S. (minor) believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault, abuse,

and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

112

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.113 15:55:43 Page Pg 114 113 of of 239 238

QQ. E.P. (MINOR) by Next Friend M.P.

993. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

994. Plaintiff E.P. (minor) treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU in approximately

2015 and 2016.

995. In 2015 and 2016, Plaintiff Jane E.P. Doe was a minor, approximately 13 to 14 years old.

996. Plaintiff E.P. (minor) presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of back pain as a

result of gymnastics.

997. Plaintiff E.P. (minor) is a USAG member.

998. Beginning in or around January 2016, between approximately one to five times at

appointments at his office at MSU, Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff E.P.

(minor)’s vagina without prior notice and without gloves or lubricant.

999. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve intra-vaginal digital

penetration to Plaintiff E.P. (minor) or E.P. (minor)’s parents.

1000. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

E.P. (minor) or E.P. (minor)’s parents.

1001. Plaintiff E.P. (minor) did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

1002. Plaintiff E.P. (minor) believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault, abuse,

and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

RR. JANE A78 DOE

1003. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

113

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.114 15:55:43 Page Pg 115 114 of of 239 238

1004. Plaintiff Jane A78 Doe was a USAG Junior National Team member from approximately

1999-2000 and a USAG Senior National Team member from approximately 2000-2001.

1005. Plaintiff Jane A78 Doe is a former USAG member.

1006. From 1999 – 2001 Plaintiff Jane A78 Doe was a minor, approximately 15 to 17 years old.

1007. Plaintiff Jane A78 Doe treated with Defendant Nassar at a USAG sanctioned meet in St.

Louis, Missouri in 2000 after suffering a lower back injury at the meet.

1008. At this time, Defendant Nassar was employed by MSU as an Assistant Professor and part

of his duties included participation in “Outreach” and “Community Activities,” which

included but was not limited to his involvement with Defendant USAG.

1009. In 2000, while at the USAG sanctioned meet, Defendant Nassar touched Plaintiff Jane A78

Doe’s vagina and vaginal area without prior notice and without gloves or lubricant.

1010. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve intra-vaginal digital

penetration to Plaintiff Jane A78 Doe or Plaintiff’s Jane A78 Doe’s parents.

1011. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Plaintiff Jane A78 Doe or Plaintiff Jane A78 Doe’s parents.

1012. Plaintiff Jane A78 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

1013. Plaintiff Jane A78 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

SS. BRITTNEY SCHUMANN

1014. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1015. Plaintiff Brittney Schumann was on the USAG National Women’s team from

114

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.115 15:55:43 Page Pg 116 115 of of 239 238

approximately 1995 to 2002.

1016. In approximately 1995 or 1996, Plaintiff Brittney Schumann attended a USAG national

team training camp in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

1017. Plaintiff Schumann is a former USAG member.

1018. At this time, Defendant Nassar was employed by MSU as an Assistant or Associate

Professor and part of his duties included participation in “Outreach” and “Community

Activities,” which included but was not limited to his involvement with Defendant USAG.

1019. In 1995 and 1996, Plaintiff Brittney Schumann was a minor, approximately 10 or 11 years

old.

1020. Plaintiff Brittney Schumann presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of a hamstring

injury as a result of gymnastics.

1021. In 1995 or 1996, on approximately two occasions at the USAG national team training camp

in Tulsa, Oklahoma, Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Brittney Schumann’s

vagina without prior notice and without gloves or lubricant.

1022. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve intra-vaginal digital

penetration to Plaintiff Brittney Schumann or Brittney Schumann’s parents.

1023. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Plaintiff Brittney Schumann or Brittney Schumann’s parents.

1024. Plaintiff Brittney Schumann did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for

OB/GYN issues.

1025. Plaintiff Brittney Schumann believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

TT. A.B. (MINOR) BY NEXT FRIEND L.B.

115

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.116 15:55:43 Page Pg 117 116 of of 239 238

1026. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1027. Plaintiff A.B. treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU from approximately 2008

to 2016.

1028. From 2008 to 2016, Plaintiff A.B. was a minor, approximately 7 to 15 years old.

1029. Plaintiff A.B. presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of back, rib, and hip pain as

a result of gymnastics.

1030. Plaintiff A.B. (minor) is a former USAG member.

1031. Plaintiff A.B. (minor) is a former Twistars member.

1032. In 2015, on approximately five occasions at appointments at his office at MSU, Defendant

Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff A.B.’s vagina without prior notice and without gloves

or lubricant.

1033. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve intra-vaginal digital

penetration to Plaintiff A.B. or Plaintiff A.B.’s parents.

1034. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Plaintiff A.B. or Plaintiff A.B.’s parents.

1035. Plaintiff A.B. did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN issues.

1036. Plaintiff A.B. believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault, abuse, and

molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

UU. MEGAN HALICEK

1037. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1038. Plaintiff Megan Halicek treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU in

116

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.117 15:55:43 Page Pg 118 117 of of 239 238

approximately 2007.

1039. In 2007, Plaintiff Megan Halicek was a minor, approximately 16 years old.

1040. Plaintiff Megan Halicek presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of back pain as a

result of a fractured spine due to gymnastics.

1041. Plaintiff Halicek is a former USAG member.

1042. In 2007, between approximately seven to ten times at appointments at his office at MSU,

Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Megan Halicek’s vagina and anus and

touched her anal area without prior notice and without gloves or lubricant.

1043. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve intra-vaginal digital

penetration, intra-rectal digital penetration, or touching around the anus to Plaintiff Megan

Halicek or Megan Halicek’s parents.

1044. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration or to

touch her anal area from Megan Halicek or Megan Halicek’s parents.

1045. Plaintiff Megan Halicek did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

1046. Plaintiff Megan Halicek believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

VV. STEPHANIE ROBINSON

1047. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1048. Plaintiff Stephanie Robinson treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU from

approximately 2013 to 2016.

1049. From 2013 to 2016, Plaintiff Stephanie Robinson was a minor, approximately 13 to 16

117

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.118 15:55:43 Page Pg 119 118 of of 239 238

years old.

1050. Plaintiff Stephanie Robinson presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of hip pain as

a result of cross country and track and field.

1051. Between approximately January 2014 and 2016, at multiple appointments at his office at

MSU, Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Stephanie Robinson’s vagina

approximately 20 to 22 times without prior notice and without gloves and sometimes

without lubricant for between approximately 10 to 20 minutes at a time.

1052. On some occasions, Defendant Nassar touched or “massaged” Plaintiff Stephanie

Robinson’s vagina in addition to the digital penetration.

1053. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve touching Plaintiff Stephanie

Robinson’s vaginal area or intra-vaginal digital penetration to Plaintiff Stephanie Robinson

or Stephanie Robinson’s parents.

1054. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent to touch Plaintiff Stephanie

Robinson’s vaginal area or for digital penetration from Stephanie Robinson or Stephanie

Robinson’s parents.

1055. Plaintiff Stephanie Robinson did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for

OB/GYN issues.

1056. Plaintiff Stephanie Robinson believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

WW. HANNAH MORROW

1057. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1058. Plaintiff Hannah Morrow treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU, at Twistars,

118

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.119 15:55:43 Page Pg 120 119 of of 239 238

and his residence from approximately 2011 to 2016.

1059. From 2011 to 2016, Plaintiff Hannah Morrow was a minor, approximately 11 to 16 years

old.

1060. Plaintiff Hannah Morrow presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of hamstring,

elbow, shin, and back pain as a result of gymnastics.

1061. Plaintiff Morrow is a former USAG member.

1062. Between approximately 2011 and 2016, at appointments at his office at MSU, at Twistars,

and at his residence, Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Hannah Morrow’s

vagina between 11 and 20 times without prior notice and without gloves or lubricant.

1063. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve intra-vaginal digital

penetration to Plaintiff Hannah Morrow or Hannah Morrow’s parents.

1064. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Hannah Morrow or Hannah Morrow’s parents.

1065. On at least one occasion Defendant Nassar touched Plaintiff Hannah Morrow’s breasts.

1066. Plaintiff Hannah Morrow did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for

OB/GYN issues.

1067. Plaintiff Hannah Morrow believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

XX. KARA JOHNSON

1068. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1069. Plaintiff Kara Johnson treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU from

approximately 2012 to 2016.

119

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.120 15:55:43 Page Pg 121 120 of of 239 238

1070. From 2012 to 2016, Plaintiff Kara Johnson was a minor, approximately 13 to 16 years old.

1071. Plaintiff Kara Johnson initially presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of knee

pain as a result of tennis and cross-country.

1072. Defendant Nassar began “treating” other areas of Plaintiff Kara Johnson’s body although

she was only initially seeking treatment for her knee.

1073. At some appointments, Defendant Nassar would require Plaintiff Kara Johnson to change

into loose fitting shorts that he provided.

1074. In or around November 20, 2013, and between approximately 2014 and 2015 on at least

approximately three occasions at his office at MSU, Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated

Plaintiff Kara Johnson’s vagina without prior notice and without gloves.

1075. At times, Defendant Nassar would close his eyes and keep them closed while digitally

penetrating Plaintiff Kara Johnson.

1076. Defendant Nassar would put his hands under Plaintiff Kara Johnson’s underwear and push

her underwear to the side to digitally penetrate her vagina.

1077. On at least one occasion, Defendant Nassar smacked Plaintiff Kara Johnson’s buttocks

after digitally penetrating her and made a statement to the effect of, “alright sweetie, we

are done here.”

1078. On multiple occasions Defendant Nassar made inappropriate comments regarding

menstrual cycles in Plaintiff Kara Johnson’s presence.

1079. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve intra-vaginal digital

penetration to Plaintiff Kara Johnson or Kara Johnson’s parents.

1080. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Plaintiff Kara Johnson or Kara Johnson’s parents.

120

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.121 15:55:43 Page Pg 122 121 of of 239 238

1081. Plaintiff Kara Johnson did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

1082. Plaintiff Kara Johnson believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault, abuse,

and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

YY. M.J. (MINOR) by Next Friend K.J.

1083. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1084. Plaintiff M.J. treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU from approximately 2014

to 2016.

1085. From 2014 to 2016, Plaintiff M.J. was a minor, approximately 12 to 14 years old.

1086. Plaintiff M.J. presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of back pain as a result of

gymnastics.

1087. Between approximately June 2014 and January 2016, at his office at MSU, on at least two

or three occasions, Defendant Nassar touched Plaintiff M.J.’s vagina and vaginal area

without prior notice and without gloves.

1088. Defendant Nassar would put his hands under Plaintiff M.J.’s underwear and push her

underwear to the side to touch her vagina and vaginal area.

1089. On multiple occasions Defendant Nassar made inappropriate comments regarding

menstrual cycles in Plaintiff M.J.’s presence.

1090. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve vaginal touching or intra-

vaginal digital penetration to Plaintiff M.J. or Plaintiff M.J.’s parents.

1091. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for vaginal touching or digital

penetration from M.J. or M.J.’s parents.

121

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.122 15:55:43 Page Pg 123 122 of of 239 238

1092. Plaintiff M.J. did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN issues.

1093. Plaintiff M.J. believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault, abuse, and

molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

ZZ. SAMANTHA URSCH

1094. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1095. Plaintiff Samantha Ursch treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU in

approximately 2011.

1096. In 2011, Plaintiff Samantha Ursch was a student athlete at Central Michigan University

competing as a gymnast.

1097. Plaintiff Samantha Ursch presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of low back pain

as a result of gymnastics.

1098. Plaintiff Samantha Ursch had approximately three appointments with Defendant Nassar

between January and February 2011.

1099. At all three appointments, Plaintiff Samantha Ursch checked in with staff members of MSU

Sports Medicine clinic at the beginning of her appointments.

1100. At the first and third appointments Plaintiff Samantha Ursch checked out with staff

members of MSU’s Sports Medicine clinic at the end of her appointments, but at the second

appointment, Plaintiff Samantha did not check out with staff of MSU’s Sports Medicine

Clinic.

1101. At the second appointment, on or around January 28, 2011, at the beginning of Plaintiff

Samantha Ursch’s appointment with Defendant Nassar, a staff member of the MSU Sports

Medicine clinic came into the exam room and said goodbye, leaving Plaintiff Samantha

122

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.123 15:55:43 Page Pg 124 123 of of 239 238

Ursch completely alone in the office with Defendant Nassar.

1102. On or around January 28, 2011, at the beginning of Plaintiff Samantha Ursch’s appointment

with Defendant Nassar, a staff member of the MSU Sports Medicine clinic came into the

exam room and said goodbye, leaving Plaintiff Samantha Ursch completely alone in the

office with Defendant Nassar.

1103. At the appointment on or around January 28, 2011, at his office at MSU, Defendant Nassar

digitally penetrated Plaintiff Samantha Ursch’s vagina and anus without prior notice and

without gloves.

1104. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve intra-vaginal or intra-rectal

digital penetration to Plaintiff Samantha Ursch.

1105. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Plaintiff Samantha Ursch

1106. Plaintiff Samantha Ursch did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for

OB/GYN issues.

1107. Plaintiff Samantha Ursch believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

AAA. JANE A90 DOE

1108. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1109. Plaintiff Jane A90 Doe treated with Defendant Nassar from approximately 2004 to 2013.

1110. From 2004 to 2007, Plaintiff Jane A90 Doe was a minor, approximately 13 to 17 years old.

1111. From approximately 2008 to 2013, Plaintiff Jane A90 Doe was a student athlete at MSU.

1112. Plaintiff Jane A90 Doe presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of back pain as a

123

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.124 15:55:43 Page Pg 125 124 of of 239 238

result of gymnastics.

1113. From approximately 2004 to 2007 at the his office at MSU and at USAG sanctioned meets

held at Twistars, and from 2008 to 2013 at his office at MSU, at Jenison Field House, and

at USAG meets held at Twistars, Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Jane A90

Doe’s vagina approximately 20 times or more without prior notice and without using

gloves or lubricant.

1114. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve intra-vaginal digital

penetration to Plaintiff Jane A90 Doe or Plaintiff Jane A90 Doe’s parents during the times

she was seen as a minor.

1115. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Plaintiff Jane A90 Doe or Jane A90 Doe’s parents during the times she was seen as a minor.

1116. Plaintiff Jane A90 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

1117. Plaintiff Jane A90 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

BBB. JANE A91 DOE

1118. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1119. Plaintiff Jane A91 Doe treated with Defendant Nassar from approximately 2010 to 2016.

1120. From 2010 to 2015, Plaintiff Jane A91 Doe was a minor, approximately 12 to 17 years old.

1121. Plaintiff Jane A91 Doe presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of elbow, hip, and

back pain as a result of gymnastics.

1122. In or around 2010 or 2011, when seeking treatment for elbow pain, Defendant Nassar

124

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.125 15:55:43 Page Pg 126 125 of of 239 238

touched and pressed Jane A91 Doe’s breasts.

1123. Plaintiff Jane A91 Doe thought this touching was inappropriate and unnecessary as she was

seeking treatment for elbow pain.

1124. From approximately 2012 to 2014 at the his office at MSU, Defendant Nassar digitally

penetrated Plaintiff Jane A91 Doe’s vagina between approximately five to ten times

without prior notice and without using gloves or lubricant for between fifteen to thirty

minutes at a time.

1125. At times, Defendant Nassar would close his eyes and keep them closed while digitally

penetrating Plaintiff Jane A91 Doe.

1126. On at least one occasion, Plaintiff Jane A91 Doe observed Defendant Nassar sexually

aroused during and after he digitally penetrated Plaintiff Jane A91 Doe.

1127. One another occasion, Defendant Nassar removed Plaintiff Jane A91 Doe’s pants and

underwear on his own and barely covered her with a drape or towel while she was exposed

on the treatment table.

1128. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve intra-vaginal digital

penetration to Plaintiff Jane A91 Doe or Plaintiff Jane A91 Doe’s parents during the times

she was seen as a minor.

1129. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Plaintiff Jane A91 Doe or Jane A91 Doe’s parents during the times she was seen as a minor.

1130. Plaintiff Jane A91 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

1131. Plaintiff Jane A91 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

125

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.126 15:55:43 Page Pg 127 126 of of 239 238

CCC. JANE A93 DOE

1132. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1133. Plaintiff Jane A93 Doe has been a USAG member from 2003 to the present date.

1134. Plaintiff Jane A93 Doe has been a USAG National Team member from approximately

2014 to the present date.

1135. Plaintiff Jane A93 Doe trained at the National Team Training Center, known as the Karolyi

Ranch prior to its closing.

1136. Plaintiff Jane A93 Doe sought medical treatment with Defendant Nassar from

approximately 2014 to 2015 at the Karolyi Ranch and in China at a USAG sanctioned

event.

1137. From 2014 to 2015 Plaintiff Jane A93 Doe was a minor, approximately 16 years old.

1138. At this time, Defendant Nassar was employed by MSU as an Assistant or Associate

Professor and part of his duties included participation in “Outreach” and “Community

Activities,” which included but was not limited to his involvement with Defendant USAG.

1139. Plaintiff Jane A93 Doe presented to Defendant Nassar with back, quadriceps, and rib pain

as a result of gymnastics.

1140. In 2014 and 2015, at USAG training events and other USAG sanctioned events, Defendant

Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Jane A93 Doe’s vagina between approximately 25 to

30 times without prior notice and without gloves or lubricant.

1141. On at least one occasion Plaintiff Jane A93 Doe observed Defendant Nassar with an

erection while he digitally penetrated her and heard Defendant Nassar making grunting

noises.

126

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.127 15:55:43 Page Pg 128 127 of of 239 238

1142. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve intra-vaginal digital

penetration to Plaintiff Jane A93 Doe or Plaintiff’s Jane A93 Doe’s parents.

1143. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Plaintiff Jane A93 Doe or Plaintiff Jane A93 Doe’s parents.

1144. On another occasion, while “treating” an injury to Plaintiff Jane A93 Doe’s quadriceps,

Defendant Nassar touched and rubbed Plaintiff Jane A93 Doe’s vaginal area.

1145. On a separate occasion, while “treating” an injury to Plaintiff Jane A93 Doe’s ribs,

Defendant Nassar touched Plaintiff Jane A93 Doe’s breast.

1146. Plaintiff Jane A93 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

1147. Plaintiff Jane A93 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

DDD. SELENA BRENNAN

1148. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1149. Plaintiff Selena Brennan treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU from

approximately 2009 to 2016.

1150. From 2009 to 2016 Plaintiff Selena Brennan was a minor, approximately 10 to 17 years

old.

1151. Plaintiff Selena Brennan presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of back pain as a

result of gymnastics.

1152. In or around 2012 and 2016, at approximately two appointments at his office at MSU,

Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Selena Brennan’s vagina and anus without

127

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.128 15:55:43 Page Pg 129 128 of of 239 238

prior notice and without gloves or lubricant.

1153. At other appointments, Defendant Nassar would grope Plaintiff Selena Brennan’s breasts.

1154. On one occasion, Defendant Nassar slapped Plaintiff Selena Brennan’s buttocks and made

inappropriate comments regarding her buttocks which made Plaintiff Selena Brennan

uncomfortable.

1155. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve intra-vaginal or intra-rectal

digital penetration to Plaintiff Selena Brennan or Selena Brennan’s parents.

1156. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Selena Brennan or Selena Brennan’s parents.

1157. Plaintiff Selena Brennan did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

1158. Plaintiff Selena Brennan believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

EEE. JANE A94 DOE by Next Friend JANE A95 DOE

1159. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1160. Plaintiff Jane A94 Doe treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU and at his

residence in approximately 2015 and 2016.

1161. In 2015 and 2016, Plaintiff Jane A94 Doe was a minor, approximately 8 and 9 years old.

1162. Plaintiff Jane A94 Doe presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of tailbone pain as

a result of gymnastics.

1163. Between approximately December 2015 and August 2016, at approximately 14

appointments at his office at MSU and at his residence, Defendant Nassar digitally

128

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.129 15:55:43 Page Pg 130 129 of of 239 238

penetrated Plaintiff Jane A94 Doe’s anus without prior notice and without gloves or

lubricant.

1164. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve anal digital penetration to

Plaintiff Jane A94 Doe or Jane A94 Doe’s parents.

1165. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Jane A94 Doe or Jane A94 Doe’s parents.

1166. Plaintiff Jane A94 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

1167. Plaintiff Jane A94 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

FFF. JANE A96 DOE by Next Friend JANE A97 DOE

1168. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1169. Plaintiff Jane A96 Doe treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU in

approximately 2014 and 2016.

1170. From 2014 to 2016, Plaintiff Jane A96 Doe was a minor, approximately 9 to 11 years old.

1171. Plaintiff Jane A96 Doe presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of knee pain as a

result of gymnastics.

1172. Between approximately 2014 and 2016, at approximately 3 appointments at his office at

MSU and at his residence, Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Jane A96 Doe’s

anus without prior notice and without gloves or lubricant.

1173. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve anal digital penetration to

Plaintiff Jane A96 Doe or Jane A96 Doe’s parents.

129

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.130 15:55:43 Page Pg 131 130 of of 239 238

1174. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Jane A96 Doe or Jane A96 Doe’s parents.

1175. Plaintiff Jane A96 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

1176. Plaintiff Jane A96 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

GGG. JANE A98 DOE

1177. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1178. Plaintiff Jane A98 Doe treated with Defendant Nassar at Twistars from approximately1999

to 2004.

1179. From 1999 to 2004, Plaintiff Jane A98 Doe was a minor, approximately 8 to 13 years old.

1180. Plaintiff Jane A98 Doe presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of wrist and neck

pain as a result of gymnastics.

1181. On one occasion between 1999 and 2001, at an appointment Twistars, Defendant Nassar

digitally penetrated Plaintiff Jane A98 Doe’s vagina without prior notice and without

gloves or lubricant.

1182. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve intra-vaginal digital

penetration to Plaintiff Jane A98 Doe or Jane A98 Doe’s parents.

1183. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Jane A98 Doe or Jane A98 Doe’s parents.

1184. Plaintiff Jane A98 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

130

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.131 15:55:43 Page Pg 132 131 of of 239 238

1185. Plaintiff Jane A98 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

HHH. JANE A99 DOE

1186. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1187. Plaintiff Jane A99 Doe was a USAG member from approximately 1990 to 2002.

1188. Plaintiff Jane A99 Doe was a USAG TOPS National Team member in approximately 1992

and 1993, a USAG Junior National Team member from approximately 1996 to 1999, and

a Senior National Team member from approximately 1999 to 2002.

1189. Plaintiff Jane A99 Doe trained at the National Team Training Center, known as the Karolyi

Ranch prior to its closing.

1190. Plaintiff Jane A99 Doe sought medical treatment with Defendant Nassar in 1999 at the

Karolyi Ranch, and in 2000 at a USAG sanctioned event in Texas.

1191. Plaintiff Jane A99 Doe presented to Defendant Nassar with hip and foot pain as a result of

gymnastics.

1192. From 1990 to 2001, Plaintiff Jane A99 Doe was a minor, approximately 7 to 17 years old.

1193. During this time, Defendant Nassar was employed by MSU as an Assistant or Associate

Professor and part of his duties included participation in “Outreach” and “Community

Activities,” which included but was not limited to his involvement with Defendant USAG.

1194. In 1999 at the Karolyi Ranch in her cabin while she was alone with Defendant Nassar,

Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Jane A99 Doe’s vagina without prior notice

and without gloves or lubricant.

1195. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve intra-vaginal digital

131

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.132 15:55:43 Page Pg 133 132 of of 239 238

penetration to Plaintiff Jane A99 Doe or Plaintiff’s Jane A99 Doe’s parents.

1196. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Plaintiff Jane A99 Doe or Plaintiff Jane A99 Doe’s parents.

1197. On another occasion in or around 2000, while traveling in a car from the Karolyi Ranch to

Houston, Texas, Defendant Nassar sat in the back seat of a vehicle with Plaintiff and

touched Plaintiff Jane A99 Doe’s inappropriately during the ride.

1198. On another occasion in or around 2000, while at a USAG sanctioned event in San Antonio,

Texas prior to traveling to Sydney, Australia for the 2000 Summer Olympic Games,

Defendant Nassar administered medication to Plaintiff Jane A99 Doe, which she believed

was to treat her foot pain.

1199. The “medication” administered did not alleviate her foot pain; instead, Plaintiff Jane A99

Doe has little to no memory of her trip to Australia after the “medication” administered.

1200. At the time Plaintiff Jane A99 Doe was under the impression she was receiving a cortisone

injection, but to the best of her belief, knowledge, and recollection, this was not the type

of medication she received.

1201. To the best of Plaintiff Jane A99 Doe’s belief, knowledge, and recollection, Defendant

Nassar reported to Plaintiff Jane A99 Doe’s mother that another doctor administered the

medication, however Plaintiff Jane A99 Doe does not recall any other medical professional

other than Defendant Nassar being present at that time.

1202. Plaintiff Jane A99 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

1203. Plaintiff Jane A99 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

132

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.133 15:55:43 Page Pg 134 133 of of 239 238

III. JANE A100 DOE

1204. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1205. Plaintiff Jane A100 Doe treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU from

approximately1999 to 2003.

1206. From 1999 to 2003, Plaintiff Jane A100 Doe was a minor, approximately 7 to 11 years old.

1207. Plaintiff Jane A100 Doe presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of back pain as a

result of gymnastics.

1208. In or around 2003, at approximately one appointment at his office at MSU, Defendant

Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Jane A100 Doe’s vagina without gloves or lubricant.

1209. Plaintiff Jane A100 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

1210. Plaintiff Jane A100 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

JJJ. CHANDLER LYNN

1211. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1212. Plaintiff Chandler Lynn treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU from

approximately 2013 to 2016.

1213. From 2013 to 2016, Plaintiff Chandler Lynn was a minor, approximately 14 to 17 years

old.

1214. Plaintiff Chandler Lynn presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of back and knee

pain as a result of gymnastics.

133

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.134 15:55:43 Page Pg 135 134 of of 239 238

1215. In or around 2014, at approximately one appointment at his office at MSU, Defendant

Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Chandler Lynn’s vagina without prior notice and

without gloves or lubricant.

1216. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve intra-vaginal digital

penetration to Plaintiff Chandler Lynn or Chandler Lynn’s parents.

1217. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Chandler Lynn or Chandler Lynn’s parents.

1218. Plaintiff Chandler Lynn did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

1219. Plaintiff Chandler Lynn believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

LLL. JANE A103 DOE

1220. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1221. Plaintiff Jane A103 Doe treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU, at USAG

sanctioned events, and Defendant Nassar’s residence from approximately 2007 or 2008 to

2011.

1222. From approximately 2007 to 2011, Plaintiff Jane A103 Doe was a minor, approximately

12 to 17 years old.

1223. Plaintiff Jane A103 Doe presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of back pain as a

result of gymnastics.

1224. Between 2011 and 2012, at approximately six appointments at his office at MSU,

Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Jane A103 Doe’s vagina without prior

134

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.135 15:55:43 Page Pg 136 135 of of 239 238

notice and without gloves for between 5 to 15 minutes.

1225. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve intra-vaginal digital

penetration to Plaintiff Jane A103 Doe or Jane A103 Doe’s parents.

1226. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Jane A103 Doe or Jane A103 Doe’s parents.

1227. Plaintiff Jane A103 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

1228. On several occasions, Plaintiff Jane A103 Doe observed Defendant Nassar grunting and

breathing heavily while digitally penetrating her vagina.

1229. On multiple occasions, under the guise of adjusting Plaintiff Jane A103 Doe’s back

“another way,” Defendant Nassar approached Plaintiff Jane A103 Doe from behind and

touched and groped her breasts.

1230. Plaintiff Jane A103 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

MMM. JANE A104 DOE by Next Friend JANE A105 DOE

1231. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1232. Plaintiff Jane A104 Doe treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU, at Twistars,

and at his residence from approximately 2013 to 2016.

1233. From 2013 to 2016, Plaintiff Jane A104 Doe was a minor, approximately 11 to 14 years

old.

1234. Plaintiff Jane A104 Doe presented to Defendant Nassar with injuries suffered as a result of

gymnastics.

135

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.136 15:55:43 Page Pg 137 136 of of 239 238

1235. Between approximately 2015 and 2016, on approximately 15 or more occasions at

appointments at Defendant Nassar’s office at MSU, at Twistars, and at his residence,

Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Jane A104 Doe’s vagina without prior

notice and without gloves or lubricant.

1236. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve intra-vaginal digital

penetration to Plaintiff Jane A104 Doe or Jane A104 Doe’s parents.

1237. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Jane A104 Doe or Jane A104 Doe’s parents.

1238. Plaintiff Jane A104 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

1239. Plaintiff Jane A104 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

NNN. JANE A107 DOE

1240. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1241. Plaintiff Jane A107 Doe treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU from

approximately 1998 to 2005.

1242. From 1998 to 2004, Plaintiff Jane A107 Doe was a minor, approximately 11 to 17 years

old.

1243. Plaintiff Jane A107 Doe presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of hamstring and

hip pain as a result of gymnastics.

1244. In or around 2000 or 2002, at approximately six to eight appointments at his office at MSU,

Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Jane A107 Doe’s vagina without prior

136

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.137 15:55:43 Page Pg 138 137 of of 239 238

notice and without gloves or lubricant and without any other chaperone in the room.

1245. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve intra-vaginal or intra-rectal

digital penetration to Plaintiff Jane A107 Doe or Jane A107 Doe’s parents.

1246. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Jane A107 Doe or Jane A107 Doe’s parents.

1247. Plaintiff Jane A107 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

1248. Plaintiff Jane A107 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

OOO. JANE A108 DOE

1249. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1250. Plaintiff Jane A108 Doe was a USAG member from approximately 1993 to 2000.

1251. Plaintiff Jane A108 Doe was a USAG Junior National Team member from approximately

1996 to 1997, and a Senior National Team member from approximately 1997 to 2000.

1252. Plaintiff Jane A108 Doe trained at the National Team Training Center, known as the

Karolyi Ranch prior to its closing.

1253. Plaintiff Jane A108 Doe sought medical treatment with Defendant Nassar between 1996

and 2000 at the Karolyi Ranch, in 1998 at a USAG sanctioned event in Indianapolis,

Indiana, in 1999 at a USAG sanctioned event in Sacramento, California, and in 2000 at a

USAG sanctioned event in Boston, Massachusetts.

1254. Plaintiff Jane A108 Doe presented to Defendant Nassar with knee, elbow, and back injuries

as a result of gymnastics.

137

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.138 15:55:43 Page Pg 139 138 of of 239 238

1255. From 1996 to 1999, Plaintiff Jane A108 Doe was a minor, approximately 14 to 17 years

old.

1256. During this time, Defendant Nassar was employed by MSU as an Assistant or Associate

Professor and part of his duties included participation in “Outreach” and “Community

Activities,” which included but was not limited to his involvement with Defendant USAG.

1257. From 1996 to 2000 at the Karolyi ranch, in 1998 at a USAG sanctioned event in

Indianapolis, Indiana, and in 1999 at a USAG sanctioned event in Sacramento, California,

Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Jane A108 Doe’s vagina and anus

approximately three to six times without gloves or lubricant.

1258. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve intra-vaginal or intra-rectal

digital penetration to Plaintiff’s Jane A108 Doe’s parents.

1259. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Plaintiff Jane A108 Doe or Plaintiff Jane A108 Doe’s parents.

1260. Plaintiff Jane A108 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

1261. Plaintiff Jane A108 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

PPP. JANE A109 DOE

1262. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1263. Plaintiff Jane A109 Doe was a USAG member from approximately 1995 to 2006, and from

2015 to 2018.

1264. Plaintiff Jane A109 Doe was a USAG Junior National Team member in approximately

138

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.139 15:55:43 Page Pg 140 139 of of 239 238

2002 and a USAG Senior National Team member in approximately 2004.

1265. Plaintiff Jane A109 Doe trained at the National Team Training Center, known as the

Karolyi Ranch prior to its closing.

1266. Plaintiff Jane A109 Doe sought medical treatment with Defendant Nassar in 2002 at the

Karolyi Ranch.

1267. Plaintiff Jane A109 Doe presented to Defendant Nassar with hamstring pain as a result of

gymnastics.

1268. In 2002, Plaintiff Jane A109 Doe was a minor, approximately 13 and 14 years old.

1269. During this time, Defendant Nassar was employed by MSU as an Assistant or Associate

Professor and part of his duties included participation in “Outreach” and “Community

Activities,” which included but was not limited to his involvement with Defendant USAG.

1270. In 2002 at the Karolyi Ranch with no adults present, Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated

Plaintiff Jane A109 Doe’s vagina without gloves or lubricant for up to 10 minutes at a time.

1271. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve intra-vaginal digital

penetration to Plaintiff’s Jane A109 Doe’s parents.

1272. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice to or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Plaintiff Jane A109 Doe’s parents.

1273. Plaintiff Jane A109 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

1274. Plaintiff Jane A109 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

QQQ. KATHRYN MIDDLETON

1275. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

139

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.140 15:55:43 Page Pg 141 140 of of 239 238

paragraphs.

1276. Plaintiff Kathryn Middleton was a USAG member from approximately 1992 to 2002.

1277. In or around 2000, Plaintiff Kathryn Middleton attended a USAG sanctioned gymnastics

camp at the Karolyi Ranch.

1278. Plaintiff Kathryn Middleton treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU and at

USAG sanctioned events including at least one held at Twistars from approximately 2008

to 2012.

1279. From 2008 to 2012, Plaintiff Kathryn Middleton was a minor, approximately 12 to 16 years

old.

1280. Plaintiff Kathryn Middleton presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of back and

hip pain as a result of gymnastics.

1281. From 1998 to 2002, on approximately 50 occasions at his office at MSU, Defendant Nassar

digitally penetrated Plaintiff Kathryn Middleton’s vagina and anus without prior notice and

without gloves or lubricant and without any other chaperone in the room.

1282. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve intra-vaginal or intra-rectal

digital penetration to Plaintiff Kathryn Middleton or Kathryn Middleton’s parents.

1283. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Kathryn Middleton or Kathryn Middleton’s parents.

1284. Plaintiff Kathryn Middleton did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for

OB/GYN issues.

1285. Plaintiff Kathryn Middleton believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

RRR. DONNA MARKHAM FOR CHELSEY MARKHAM

140

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.141 15:55:43 Page Pg 142 141 of of 239 238

1286. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1287. Chelsey Markham treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU between

approximately 1995 and 1997.

1288. From 1995 to 1997, Chelsey Markham was a minor, approximately 10 to 12 years old.

1289. Chelsey Markham presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of back pain as a result

of gymnastics.

1290. Chelsey Markham is a former USAG member.

1291. Between 1995 and 1997, at multiple appointments at his office at MSU, Defendant Nassar

digitally penetrated Chelsey Markham’s vagina and rectum without prior notice and

without gloves.

1292. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve intra-vaginal digital

penetration to Chelsey Markham or Chelsey Markham’s mother.

1293. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Chelsey Markham or Chelsey Markham’s mother.

1294. Chelsey Markham did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

1295. The Estate of Chelsey Markham by Personal Representative Donna Markham believes the

conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault, abuse, and molestation and for Defendant

Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

SSS. JANE A111 DOE

1296. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

141

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.142 15:55:43 Page Pg 143 142 of of 239 238

1297. Plaintiff Jane A111 Doe treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU, Jenison Field

House, at a USAG sanctioned meet held by Defendant Twistars, and at Nassar’s residence

between approximately 2011 and 2014.

1298. From 2011 to 2014, Plaintiff Jane A111 Doe was a minor, approximately 13 to 16 years

old.

1299. Plaintiff Jane A111 Doe presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of back and

hamstring pain as a result of gymnastics.

1300. Plaintiff Jane A111 Doe is a former USAG member.

1301. Between 2011 and 2014, on approximately 13 to 20 different appointments and occasions

at various locations including his office at MSU, Jenison Field House, Twistars, and his

residence, Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Jane A111 Doe’s vagina without

prior notice and without gloves and lubricant.

1302. On at least one occasion, Plaintiff Jane A111 Doe was assaulted at Defendant Nassar’s

residence in his basement.

1303. On at least one occasion, when Plaintiff was not competing but attending a meet as a

spectator at Twistars, she “treated” with Defendant Nassar and on that occasion he digitally

penetrated Plaintiff Jane A111 Doe’s vagina without prior notice and without gloves or

lubricant.

1304. During the visits, Defendant Nassar would position himself in a manner in which Plaintiff

Jane A111 Doe’s mother could not see his conduct.

1305. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve intra-vaginal digital

penetration to Plaintiff Jane A111 Doe or Jane A111 Doe’s parents.

1306. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

142

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.143 15:55:43 Page Pg 144 143 of of 239 238

Plaintiff Jane A111 Doe or Jane A111 Doe’s parents.

1307. Plaintiff Jane A111 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

1308. It is believed some of the aforementioned sexual assaults occurred after MSU was notified

in 2014 of allegations of sexual abuse by Defendant Nassar during “treatments” with

athletes and patients.

1309. Plaintiff Jane A111 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

TTT. MEGAN GINTER

1310. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1311. Plaintiff Megan Ginter treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU in

approximately February and April 2013.

1312. In 2013, Plaintiff Megan Ginter was a minor, approximately 13 years old.

1313. Plaintiff Megan Ginter presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of hip pain as a

result of gymnastics.

1314. Plaintiff Megan Ginter is a former USAG member.

1315. In 2013, at approximately two appointments at his office at MSU, Defendant Nassar

digitally penetrated Plaintiff Megan Ginter’s vagina without prior notice and without

gloves and lubricant.

1316. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve intra-vaginal digital

penetration to Plaintiff Megan Ginter or Megan Ginter’s parents.

1317. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

143

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.144 15:55:43 Page Pg 145 144 of of 239 238

Plaintiff Megan Ginter or Megan Ginter’s parents.

1318. On at least one occasion, when Plaintiff Megan Ginter was seeking treatment for hip pain,

Defendant Nassar touched her breasts, buttocks, and vagina.

1319. Plaintiff Megan Ginter believes the touching was inappropriate and unnecessary.

1320. On at least one occasion, Plaintiff Megan Ginter observed Defendant Nassar sexually

aroused.

1321. Plaintiff Megan Ginter did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

1322. Plaintiff Megan Ginter believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

UUU. JANE A112 DOE

1323. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1324. Plaintiff Jane A112 Doe was a student at MSU from 1996 to 2000.

1325. From approximately 1996 to 2000 Plaintiff Jane A112 Doe was a member of the MSU

Women’s Gymnastics team.

1326. Plaintiff Jane A112 Doe presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of injuries and

pain to her knee and left leg (fracture) as a result of gymnastics.

1327. Plaintiff Jane A112 Doe is a former USAG member.

1328. Plaintiff Jane A112 Doe had numerous appointments with Defendant Nassar.

1329. On at least three occasions between 1997 and 2000, in Jenison Field House and his office

at MSU, Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Jane A112 Doe’s vagina without

prior notice or gloves.

144

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.145 15:55:43 Page Pg 146 145 of of 239 238

1330. On some occasions, Defendant Nassar would brush his hips against Plaintiff Jane A112

Doe buttocks at appointments.

1331. Plaintiff Jane A112 Doe believes the touching was inappropriate and unnecessary.

1332. Plaintiff Jane A112 Doe believes MSU failed to educate her and other MSU athletes on

issues regarding sexual abuse and sexual assault.

1333. Plaintiff Jane A112 Doe also believes MSU’s athletic trainers and staff were not properly

trained or educated regarding osteopathic medicine and therefore followed inadequate

safeguards and procedures which put her, and other student athletes at risk of suffering

sexual abuse and sexual assault.

1334. Plaintiff Jane A112 Doe believes Defendant Nassar and others at MSU including, but not

limited to Mr. Dietzel did not make medical decisions which were in her best interest which

subjected her to continued and sustained injury to her knee, as well as other injuries and

damages.

1335. Defendant Nassar did not obtain consent to touch Plaintiff Jane A112 Doe’s vaginal area

or vagina, nor did he obtain consent for digital penetration from Plaintiff Jane A112 Doe.

1336. Defendant Nassar did not explain to Plaintiff Jane A112 Doe that his “treatment” would

involve digital penetration.

1337. Plaintiff Jane A112 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

1338. Plaintiff Jane A112 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

VVV. JANE A114 DOE

1339. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

145

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.146 15:55:43 Page Pg 147 146 of of 239 238

paragraphs.

1340. Plaintiff Jane A114 Doe treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU, at Twistars,

and at Defendant Nassar’s residence from approximately 2004 to 2011.

1341. From 2004 to 2011, Plaintiff Jane A114 Doe was a minor, approximately 9 to 17 years old.

1342. Plaintiff Jane A114 Doe presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of shoulder, back,

and rib pain as a result of gymnastics.

1343. Plaintiff Jane A114 Doe is a former USAG member.

1344. Plaintiff Jane A114 Doe is a former Twistars member.

1345. Between 2004 and 2011, on more than approximately 20 times at various locations such as

his office at MSU, at Twistars, and at his residence, Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated

Plaintiff Jane A114 Doe’s vagina without prior notice.

1346. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve intra-vaginal digital

penetration to Plaintiff Jane A114 Doe or Jane A114 Doe’s parents.

1347. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Plaintiff Jane A114 Doe or Jane A114 Doe’s parents.

1348. Plaintiff Jane A114 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

1349. Plaintiff Jane A114 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

WWW. JANE A115 DOE

1350. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1351. Plaintiff Jane A115 Doe treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU from

146

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.147 15:55:43 Page Pg 148 147 of of 239 238

approximately 2011 to 2016.

1352. Plaintiff Jane A115 Doe presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of rib and hip pain

as a result of exercise and running.

1353. In 2016, at an appointment at his office at MSU Defendant Nassar touched Plaintiff Jane

A115 Doe’s vagina/vaginal area without prior notice.

1354. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve vaginal touching to Plaintiff

Jane A115 Doe.

1355. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for vaginal touching from

Plaintiff Jane A115 Doe.

1356. At this same appointment, Defendant Nassar touched and groped Plaintiff Jane A115 Doe’s

breast under her bra without permission prior to adjusting Plaintiff Jane A115 Doe’s rib.

1357. Plaintiff Jane A115 Doe believes this touching was inappropriate and unnecessary.

1358. Plaintiff Jane A115 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

1359. Plaintiff Jane A115 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

XXX. JANE A116 DOE

1360. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1361. Plaintiff Jane A116 Doe treated with Defendant Nassar at his office at MSU and in Jenison

Field House from approximately October 2010 to August 2016.

1362. From 2010 to 2016 Plaintiff Jane A116 Doe was a minor, approximately 13 to 17 years

old.

147

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.148 15:55:43 Page Pg 149 148 of of 239 238

1363. Plaintiff Jane A116 Doe presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of hip pain and

ankle injuries as a result of gymnastics.

1364. Plaintiff Jane A116 Doe is a former USAG member.

1365. From 2013 to 2016, at hundreds of appointments at his office at MSU and in Jenison Field

House, Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated Plaintiff Jane A116 Doe’s vagina without

prior notice and without gloves.

1366. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct would involve intra-vaginal digital

penetration to Plaintiff Jane A116 Doe or Jane A116 Doe’s parents.

1367. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Plaintiff Jane A116 Doe or Jane A116 Doe’s parents.

1368. Plaintiff Jane A116 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Defendant Nassar for OB/GYN

issues.

1369. Plaintiff Jane A116 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar’s pleasure and self-gratification.

YYY. JANE A120 DOE

1370. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1371. Plaintiff Jane A120 Doe treated with Dr. Nassar between approximately 2009 through

2015 at the Karolyi Ranch and numerous locations nationally and internationally. Plaintiff

Jane A120 Doe was a national team member with USA Gymnastics.

1372. From 2009 to 2015, Plaintiff Jane A120 Doe was a minor, approximately 12 to 17 years

old.

1373. Plaintiff Jane A120 Doe presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of various

148

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.149 15:55:43 Page Pg 150 149 of of 239 238

ailments relating from gymnastics.

1374. On numerous occasions from 2009 through 2015, Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated

and touched Plaintiff Jane A120. Doe's vagina without prior notice and without gloves or

lubricant.

1375. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as "treatment" as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Jane A120 Doe.

1376. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Jane A120 Doe or from Jane A120 Doe's parents even though she was a minor at the time.

1377. Plaintiff Jane A120 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Dr. Nassar for OB/GYN issues.

1378. Plaintiff Jane A120 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar's pleasure and self-gratification.

1379. As a result of the sexual assault, abuse, and molestation Plaintiff Jane A120 Doe suffered

severe emotional distress, physical harm, and pain and suffering.

ZZZ. JANE A121 DOE

1380. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1381. Plaintiff Jane A121 Doe treated with Dr. Nassar between approximately 2011 through 2015

at the Karolyi Ranch and numerous locations nationally and internationally. Plaintiff Jane

A121 Doe was a national team member with USA Gymnastics.

1382. From 2011 to 2015, Plaintiff Jane A121 Doe was a minor, approximately 14 to 17 years

old.

1383. Plaintiff Jane A121 Doe presented to Defendant Nassar with complaints of various

ailments relating from gymnastics.

149

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.150 15:55:43 Page Pg 151 150 of of 239 238

1384. On approximately hundreds of occasions, Defendant Nassar digitally penetrated and

touched Plaintiff Jane A121 Doe's vagina without prior notice and without gloves or

lubricant.

1385. Defendant Nassar would put his hands under Plaintiff Jane A121 Doe's spandex shorts to

digitally penetrate Plaintiff Jane D. Doe's vagina.

1386. Defendant Nassar did not explain his conduct disguised as "treatment" as a medical

procedure to Plaintiff Jane A121 Doe.

1387. Defendant Nassar did not give prior notice or obtain consent for digital penetration from

Jane A121 Doe or from Jane A121 Doe's parents even though she was a minor at the time.

1388. Plaintiff Jane A121 Doe did not treat or intend to treat with Dr. Nassar for OB/GYN issues.

1389. Plaintiff Jane A121 Doe believes the conduct by Defendant Nassar was sexual assault,

abuse, and molestation and for Defendant Nassar's pleasure and self-gratification.

1390. As a result of the sexual assault, abuse, and molestation Plaintiff Jane A121 Doe suffered

severe emotional distress, physical harm, and pain and suffering.

VI. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT

1391. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1392. Because of the relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendants, Defendants had an

obligation and duty under the law not to hide material facts and information about

Defendant Nassar’s past, and his deviant sexual behavior and propensities.

1393. Additionally, Defendants had an affirmative duty to inform, warn, and institute appropriate

protective measures to safeguard minors who were reasonably likely to come in contact

with Defendant Nassar, including Plaintiffs.

150

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.151 15:55:43 Page Pg 152 151 of of 239 238

1394. Defendants’ willful failure to notify, give adequate warning, and implement appropriate

safeguard amounts to fraud under the circumstances.

A. DEFENDANT NASSAR

1395. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1396. Plaintiffs had a special relationship with Defendant Nassar given the physician-patient

relationship.

1397. Given the special relationship, Defendant Nassar had an affirmative duty to disclose, and to

warn and protect the athletes who sought his medical treatment from sexual abuse, assault,

and molestation.

1398. Plaintiffs hereby allege that Defendant Nassar committed Fraudulent Concealment by

committing Fraud, as described in detail above and below, and concealing the existence of

Plaintiffs’ claims and that Plaintiffs had a cause of action against Defendant Nassar and/or

Defendants USOC, USAG, or Twistars at the time his sexual assaults occurred making

material misrepresentations to Plaintiffs involving a past or existing fact by:

a. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct were a “new

procedure” which involved vaginal penetration;

b. making the statement, referring to his conduct, disguised as “treatment,” as a pelvic

adjustment;

c. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct was “checking your

sternum;”

d. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct was doing a “breast

exam;”

151

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.152 15:55:43 Page Pg 153 152 of of 239 238

e. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct was “treatment” and

that it was the same that he performed on Olympic athletes;

f. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct was “attempting to

manipulate [their] ribs;” and,

g. making a statement, explaining to Plaintiff and another medical professional that

the position of his hand was in an appropriate place, when it was not and while he

was digitally penetrating Plaintiff, all which were made contemporaneously and/or

shortly after the abrupt, sudden, quick, and unexpected sexual assaults by

Defendant Nassar.

1399. The material representation(s) to Plaintiffs were false, in that he was actually performing

them for his own sexual gratification and pleasure evidenced by his observed arousal,

flushed face, and closing of the eyes during the conduct.

1400. When Defendant Nassar made the material representation(s), he knew that they were false

in that he knew that the “treatment[s]” were not proper, appropriate, legitimate, and/or

considered within standard of care by any physician of any specialty and/or sports therapist.

1401. Defendant Nassar made the material representation(s) with the intent that the material

representation(s) would be acted upon by Plaintiffs, in that Plaintiffs:

a. would believe that the “treatments” were in fact “treatments,”

b. would believe that the “treatment[s]” were proper, appropriate, and legitimate;

c. would not believe that they had been sexually assaulted;

d. would not believe that they had been sexually assaulted so that he could prevent

discovery of his sexual assaults;

e. would continue the “treatment[s]” so that he could continue to sexually assault

152

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.153 15:55:43 Page Pg 154 153 of of 239 238

them;

f. would not question and/or report the conduct to appropriate authorities; and,

g. would not reasonably believe and not be aware of a possible cause of action that

they have against Defendant Nassar and/or MSU.

1402. Plaintiffs acted in reliance upon the material representation(s), in that Plaintiffs:

a. reasonably believed that the “treatments” were in fact “treatments;”

b. reasonably believed that the “treatments” were proper, appropriate, and legitimate;

c. reasonably did not believe that they had been sexually assaulted;

d. believed that they should continue the “treatment[s];”

e. did not believe that they should question and/or report the conduct to appropriate

authorities; and,

f. did not reasonably believe that they had and were not aware of a possible cause of

action that they had against Defendant Nassar and/or MSU.

1403. Plaintiffs thereby suffered injury, in that Plaintiffs:

a. could not stop the sexual assault;

b. continued to undergo the “treatment[s]” and sexual assaults;

c. and suffered discomfort, bleeding, urinary tract infections, bacterial infections,

related physical manifestations thereof, sleep deprivation, physical illness,

vomiting, severe emotional distress, shock, humiliation, fright, grief,

embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, loss of familial relationships, loss of

enjoyment of life and will continue to suffer pain of mind and body, were prevented

and will continue to be prevented from performing Plaintiffs’ daily activities and

obtaining the full enjoyment of life, and have sustained and continue to sustain loss

153

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.154 15:55:43 Page Pg 155 154 of of 239 238

of earnings and earning capacity; and have required and will continue to require

treatment, therapy, counseling, and hospitalization to address the mental anguish

and despair caused by Defendants’ actions.

1404. Concealing the fraud by making a fraudulent material representation(s) to Plaintiffs that

was/were designed and/or planned to prevent inquiry and escape investigation and prevent

subsequent discovery of his fraud, in that he made a material representation(s) to Plaintiffs

involving a past or existing fact by:

a. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct were a “new

procedure” which involved vaginal penetration;

b. making the statement, referring to his conduct, disguised as “treatment,” as a

pelvic adjustment;

c. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct was “checking your

sternum;”

d. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct was doing a “breast

exam;”

e. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct was “treatment”

and that it was the same that he performed on Olympic athletes;

f. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct was “attempting to

manipulate [their] ribs;” and, making a statement, explaining to Plaintiff and

another medical professional that the position of his hand was in an appropriate

place, when it was not and while he was digitally penetrating Plaintiff, all which

were made contemporaneously and/or shortly after the abrupt, sudden, quick, and

unexpected sexual assaults by Defendant Nassar.

154

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.155 15:55:43 Page Pg 156 155 of of 239 238

1405. Concealing the fraud by an affirmative act(s) that was/were designed and/or planned to

prevent inquiry and escape investigation and prevent subsequent discovery of his fraud, in

that he:

a. positioned himself in a manner in which parents or chaperones in the room could

not see his conduct, so that he could conceal and prevent discovery of his conduct;

b. dismissed a medical professional from the room, during an examination of Plaintiff

while he was digitally penetrating Plaintiff, who questioned the placement of his

hands;

c. prevented other medical professionals, chaperones, parents, guardians, and/or

caregivers from being in the room during examinations and treatments of Plaintiffs

so that he could sexually assault Plaintiffs;

d. did not abide by or follow the standard and care which requires another medical

professional, chaperone, parent, guardian, and/or caregiver be in the room during

the examination and treatment of sensitive areas of minors and female patients;

e. did not abide by or follow the restrictions that had been put into place in 2014 by

MSU restricting his examination and treatment of patients only with another person

in the room; and,

f. gave Plaintiffs, at appointments, gifts such as t-shirts, pins, flags, leotards, and other

items, some with USAG logos and others without, in order to gain their trust.

1406. The actions and inactions of Defendant Nassar, as described in the preceding paragraphs,

constituted Fraudulent Concealment.

1407. At all times pertinent to this action, Defendant Nassar was an agent, apparent agent,

servant, and employee of Defendants USOC, USAG, and Twistars and operated within the

155

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.156 15:55:43 Page Pg 157 156 of of 239 238

scope of his employment and his negligence is imputed to Defendants.

1408. At all material times, Plaintiffs were entirely free of any negligence contributing to the

injuries and damages alleged.

1409. Plaintiffs did not know, could not have reasonably known, and were reasonably unaware

of a possible cause of action that they had against Defendant Nassar and/or Defendants

until the September 12, 2016 publication of a story regarding a complaint filed with MSU’s

Police Department, titled “Former USA Gymnastics doctor accused of Abuse,” or

sometime thereafter, for the following reasons among others:

a. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on the Fraud committed by Defendant Nassar by his

material representations and concealment of the true nature of his “treatments[s]”and

his actions;

b. Plaintiffs were minors and/or young females at the time of the assaults and

“treatments;”

c. Plaintiffs did not know what a legitimate and appropriately performed intra-vaginal or

intra-anal/rectal treatment was like because they had never experienced and/or had an

intra-vaginal or intra-anal/rectal treatment before or had such a procedure or treatment

explained;

d. Plaintiffs had never experienced and/or had an intra-vaginal treatment before because

they had never been treated by a physician and/or therapist that performed them;

e. Plaintiffs did not know what a legitimate and appropriately performed pelvic, vaginal,

anal, and/or breast exam was like because they had never experienced and/or had a

pelvic, vaginal, anal, and/or breast exam before;

f. Plaintiffs had never experienced and/or had a pelvic and/or vaginal exam before

156

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.157 15:55:43 Page Pg 158 157 of of 239 238

because pelvic and/or vaginal exams are not recommended and routinely performed

until a female reaches at least the age of 18 years old, pursuant to longstanding

recommendations in the literature, expert opinions, treatment guidelines, and position

statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family

Physicians, American Cancer Society, American College of Obstetricians and

Gynecologists, American Society for Clinical Pathology, and American Society for

Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology;

g. Plaintiffs had never experienced and/or had a breast exam before because breast exams

are not recommended and routinely performed until a female reaches at least the age of

21 years old, pursuant to longstanding recommendations in the literature, expert

opinions, treatment guidelines, and position statement from the American Academy of

Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Cancer Society,

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Society for Clinical

Pathology;

h. Because of these recommendations and never having had one of these treatments or

exams, it was very difficult if not impossible for Plaintiffs to differentiate a legitimate

and appropriately performed intra-vaginal treatment, pelvic, vaginal, anal, and/or

breast exam from a sexual assault;

i. Plaintiffs could not have possibly known because there were no parents, chaperones,

guardians, caregivers, and/or other medical professionals in the room during the

“treatments” to observe, question, and/or discover that his “treatments” were sexual

assaults and inform Plaintiffs that they had been sexually assaulted and had a cause of

action against Defendant Nassar;

157

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.158 15:55:43 Page Pg 159 158 of of 239 238

j. In the instances where a parent was present in the room, Defendant Nassar’s actions to

conceal the physical assaults from the view of the parents prevented the parents from

discovering that his “treatments” were sexual assaults and informing Plaintiffs that they

had been sexually assaulted and had a cause of action against Defendant Nassar;

k. Based on Neuroscience, the prefrontal cortex of the brain, which we use to make

decisions and distinguish right from wrong, is not fully formed until around the age of

23;

l. Based on Neuroscience, as the prefrontal cortex of the brain matures teenagers are able

to make better judgments;

m. Plaintiffs were intimidated by Defendant Nassar’s notoriety and reputation and

therefore believed his misrepresentations that the “treatment[s]” were legitimate and

appropriate;

n. Plaintiffs trusted Defendant Nassar due to his notoriety and reputation;

o. Plaintiffs trusted Defendant Nassar because he groomed them to believe that his

“treatments” were in fact legitimate “treatments;”

p. Plaintiffs trusted and felt that Defendant Nassar was a friend because he gave Plaintiffs,

at appointments, gifts such as t-shirts, pins, flags, leotards, and other items, some with

USAG logos and others without, in order to gain their trust;”

q. Plaintiffs had no reason to believe or be aware that they could possibly sue or had a

possible cause of action because they were minors and young females who were not

knowledgeable or aware of the civil just system;

r. Plaintiffs had no reason to believe or be aware that they could possibly sue or had a

possible cause of action because they were minors and young females who were not

158

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.159 15:55:43 Page Pg 160 159 of of 239 238

knowledgeable or aware of any remedy at law;

s. Plaintiffs had no reason to believe or be aware that they could possibly sue or had a

possible cause of action evidenced by the fact that so many other girls had been sexually

assaulted by Defendant Nassar over the past few decades, none of them had a reason

to believe or be aware that they could possibly sue or had a possible cause of action in

the past; and none of them have ever sued him in the past;

t. Plaintiffs were never told by Defendant Nassar that his conduct was sexual in nature

and not legitimate and appropriate “treatment[s]” and to conceal the sexual conduct

from their parents and others, unlike other victims of sexual abuse who are typically

told by their perpetrators that their conduct is of a sexual nature and to conceal the

sexual conduct from their parents and others;

u. Plaintiffs were compelled by Defendant Nassar to undergo “treatment[s]” like other

athletes if they wanted to continue being involved in their relevant sport therefore the

“treatments” were legitimate and appropriate;

v. Plaintiffs were minors and young athletes, therefore they were easily suggestible; and,

w. Plaintiffs had never previously heard about any allegations in the media regarding

sexual assaults or misconduct by Defendant Nassar

B. DEFENDANT USA GYMNASTICS

1410. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1411. Plaintiffs had a special and fiduciary relationship with Defendant USAG by virtue of being

dues paying members with Defendant USAG.

1412. Plaintiffs were often under the direct supervision and control of USAG or its agents and

159

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.160 15:55:43 Page Pg 161 160 of of 239 238

were in fact in loco parentis with USAG while receiving “treatment” from Defendant

Nassar.

1413. Oftentimes while training (including training at the Karolyi Ranch, a USAG sponsored

program and sanctioned facility), and while competing at USAG sanctioned events

Plaintiffs were away from their parents and under the complete care, custody, and control

of USAG.

1414. Given the special and fiduciary relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendant USAG,

Defendant USAG had an affirmative duty to disclose, and to warn and protect their

members who sought Defendant Nassar’s medical treatment from sexual abuse, assault,

and molestation.

1415. Plaintiffs were minors or young adults who trusted Defendant USAG who recommended

Defendant Nassar to provide them with medical services and who also possessed sensitive

and confidential information about their health.

1416. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the Fraud claims made below and hereby allege that

Defendant USAG committed Fraudulent Concealment by committing Fraud, as described

in detail above and below, and concealing the existence of Plaintiffs’ claims and that

Plaintiffs had a cause of action against Defendant Nassar and/or Defendant USAG at the

time his sexual assaults occurred by Defendant Nassar (as Defendant USAG’s employee

or agent) making a material representation(s) to Plaintiffs involving a past or existing fact

by:

a. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct were a “new

procedure” which involved vaginal penetration;

b. making the statement, referring to his conduct, disguised as “treatment,” as a pelvic

160

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.161 15:55:43 Page Pg 162 161 of of 239 238

adjustment;

c. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct was “checking your

sternum;”

d. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct was doing a “breast

exam;”

e. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct was “treatment” and

that it was the same that he performed on Olympic athletes;

f. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct was “attempting to

manipulate [their] ribs;” and,

g. making a statement, explaining to Plaintiff and another medical professional that

the position of his hand was in an appropriate place, when it was not and while he

was digitally penetrating Plaintiff, all which were made contemporaneously and/or

shortly after the abrupt, sudden, quick, and unexpected sexual assaults by

Defendant Nassar.

1417. The material representation(s) to Plaintiffs by Defendant Nassar were false, in that he was

actually performing them for his own sexual gratification and pleasure evidenced by his

observed arousal, flushed face, and closing of the eyes during the conduct.

1418. When Defendant Nassar made the material representation(s), he knew that they were false,

in that he knew that the “treatment[s]” were not proper, appropriate, legitimate, and/or

considered within standard of care by any physician of any specialty and/or sports therapist;

1419. Defendant Nassar made the material representation(s) with the intent that the material

representation(s) should be acted upon by Plaintiffs, in that Plaintiffs:

a. would believe that the “treatments” were in fact “treatments;”

161

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.162 15:55:43 Page Pg 163 162 of of 239 238

b. would believe that the “treatment[s]” were proper, appropriate, and legitimate;

c. would not believe that they had been sexually assaulted;

d. should not believe that they had been sexually assaulted so that he could prevent

discovery of his sexual assaults;

e. would continue the “treatment[s]” so that he could continue to sexually assault

them;

f. would not question and/or report the conduct to appropriate authorities; and,

g. would not reasonably believe and not be aware of a possible cause of action that

they have against Defendant Nassar and/or Defendant USAG.

1420. Plaintiffs acted in reliance upon Defendant Nassar’s material representation(s), in that

Plaintiffs:

a. reasonably believed that the “treatments” were in fact “treatments;”

b. reasonably believed that the “treatments” were proper, appropriate, and legitimate;

c. reasonably did not believe that they had been sexually assaulted;

d. believed that they should continue the “treatment[s];”

e. did not believe that they should question and/or report the conduct to appropriate

authorities; and did not reasonably believe that they had and were not aware of a

possible cause of action that they had against Defendant Nassar and/or Defendant

USAG.

1421. Plaintiffs thereby suffered injury, in that Plaintiffs:

a. could not stop the sexual assault;

b. continued to undergo the “treatment[s]” and sexual assaults; and,

c. suffered discomfort, bleeding, urinary tract infections, bacterial infections, related

162

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.163 15:55:43 Page Pg 164 163 of of 239 238

physical manifestations thereof, sleep deprivation, physical illness, vomiting,

severe emotional distress, shock, humiliation, fright, grief, embarrassment, loss of

self-esteem, disgrace, loss of familial relationships, loss of enjoyment of life and

will continue to suffer pain of mind and body, were prevented and will continue to

be prevented from performing Plaintiffs’ daily activities and obtaining the full

enjoyment of life, and have sustained and continue to sustain loss of earnings and

earning capacity; and have required and will continue to require treatment, therapy,

counseling, and hospitalization to address the mental anguish and despair caused

by Defendants’ actions.

1422. Defendant Nassar concealed the fraud by making a fraudulent material representation(s) to

Plaintiffs that was/were designed and/or planned to prevent inquiry and escape

investigation and prevent subsequent discovery of his fraud, in that he made a material

representation(s) to Plaintiffs involving a past or existing fact by:

a. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct were a “new

procedure” which involved vaginal penetration;

b. making the statement, referring to his conduct, disguised as “treatment,” as a pelvic

adjustment;

c. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct was “checking your

sternum;”

d. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct was doing a “breast

exam;”

e. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct was “treatment” and

that it was the same that he performed on Olympic athletes;

163

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.164 15:55:43 Page Pg 165 164 of of 239 238

f. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct was “attempting to

manipulate [their] ribs;” and,

g. making a statement, explaining to Plaintiff and another medical professional that

the position of his hand was in an appropriate place, when it was not and while he

was digitally penetrating Plaintiff, all which were made contemporaneously and/or

shortly after the abrupt, sudden, quick, and unexpected sexual assaults by

Defendant Nassar.

1423. Defendant Nassar concealing the fraud by an affirmative act(s) that was/were designed

and/or planned to prevent inquiry and escape investigation and prevent subsequent

discovery of his fraud, in that he:

a. positioned himself in a manner in which parents or chaperones in the room could

not see his conduct, so that he could conceal and prevent discovery of his conduct;,

b. dismissed a medical professional from the room, during an examination of Plaintiff

while he was digitally penetrating Plaintiff, who questioned the placement of his

hands;

c. prevented other medical professionals, chaperones, parents, guardians, and/or

caregivers from being in the room during examinations and treatments of Plaintiffs

so that he could sexually assault Plaintiffs;

d. did not abide by or follow the standard and care which requires another medical

professional, chaperone, parent, guardian, and/or caregiver be in the room during

the examination and treatment of minors and female patients;

e. did not abide by or follow Defendant USAG’s Code of Ethics, Participant Welfare

Policy, Safety/Risk Management Certification, principles in Gymnastics Risk

164

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.165 15:55:43 Page Pg 166 165 of of 239 238

Management Safety Course Handbook, and Prohibited Conduct policy, which he

was a part of creating by not examining patients in the presence of a parent,

chaperone, guardian, and/or caregiver; and,

f. gave Plaintiffs, at appointments, gifts such as t-shirts, pins, flags, leotards, and other

items, some with USAG logos and others without, in order to gain their trust.

1424. By failing to inform its members of the allegations surrounding Defendant Nassar which

led to his separation from USAG, Defendant USAG suppressed Plaintiffs’ discovery of a

cause of action.

1425. Defendant USAG’s fiduciary relationships with its members creates a duty to inform them

of prior complaints of sexual abuse by Defendant Nassar, including the reports to

Defendant USAG’s agent, Defendant Geddert as early as 1998.

1426. In or around 2010, Defendant Geddert witnessed a gymnast who was approximately 15

years old being sexual assaulted by Defendant Nassar.56

1427. Upon witnessing the sexual assault, Defendant Geddert made a joke and made a statement

to the gymnast to effect of: “I guess your back really did hurt.”57

1428. In or around 2010, Defendant Geddert served in a leadership role with Defendant USAG

notably as a USAG coach representing Team USA in national and international USAG

competitions and on the Junior Olympic Program Committee.

1429. In or around 2011, Defendant Geddert was traveling in a vehicle with members of the

56 Testimony given on May 12, 2017 at the Preliminary Examination hearing in People v. Nassar, Case No. 17-318-FY. 57 Id. 165

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.166 15:55:43 Page Pg 167 166 of of 239 238

USAG Senior National Team, including Aly Raisman.58

1430. At the time, Defendant Geddert was serving in his capacity as a USAG Olympic Coach.59

1431. Ms. Raisman indicated she and her teammates would talk about Defendant Nassar’s

conduct amongst themselves.60

1432. While traveling together, in Defendant Geddert’s presence, one of Ms. Raisman’s

teammates described “in graphic detail” what Defendant Nassar had done to her the prior

evening.61

1433. Ms. Raisman stated Defendant Geddert did not question her or her teammate about the

statements made.

1434. Again, in or around 2011, Defendant Geddert served in a leadership role with Defendant

USAG notably as a USAG coach representing Team USA in national and international

USAG competitions and on the Junior Olympic Program Committee.

1435. As early as 2010, through Defendant Geddert, Defendant USAG had notice of Defendant

Nassar’s misconduct and propensity to sexually abuse and assault girls and young women.

1436. The actions and inactions of Defendants USAG, Nassar, and Geddert, as described in the

preceding paragraphs, constituted Fraudulent Concealment.

1437. At all times pertinent to this action, Defendants Nassar and Geddert were agents, apparent

agents, servants, and employees of Defendant USAG and operated within the scope of their

employment and their Fraudulent Concealment is imputed to Defendant USAG.

58 Raisman says Olympics coach might have known about Nassar abuse for years, Saba Hamedy, available at https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/08/politics/aly-raisman-coach-allegations/index.html. Last accessed Feb. 8, 2018. 59 Id. 60 Id. 61 Id. 166

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.167 15:55:43 Page Pg 168 167 of of 239 238

1438. At all material times, Plaintiffs were entirely free of any negligence contributing to the

injuries and damages alleged.

C. DEFENDANTS TWISTARS/GEDDERT

1439. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1440. Plaintiffs had a special and fiduciary relationship with Defendants Twistars and Geddert

by virtue of being dues paying members with Defendant Twistars.

1441. Plaintiffs were often under the direct supervision and control of Twistars or its agents and

were in fact in loco parentis with Twistars while competing, training, and receiving

“treatment” from Defendant Nassar.

1442. Oftentimes while training and while competing for Defendants Twistars and Geddert at

Twistars events (also USAG sanctioned events) Plaintiffs were away from their parents

and under the complete care, custody, and control of Defendants Twistars and Geddert.

1443. Given the special and fiduciary relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendants Twistars

and Geddert, Defendants Twistars and Geddert had an affirmative duty to disclose, and to

warn and protect their members who sought Defendant Nassar’s medical treatment from

sexual abuse, assault, and molestation.

1444. Plaintiffs were minors or young adults who trusted Defendants Twistars and Geddert who

recommended Defendant Nassar to provide them with medical services and who also

possessed sensitive and confidential information about their health.

1445. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the Fraud claims made herein and hereby allege that

Defendant Twistars committed Fraudulent Concealment by committing Fraud, as

described in detail above and below, and concealing the existence of Plaintiffs’ claims and

167

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.168 15:55:43 Page Pg 169 168 of of 239 238

that Plaintiffs had a cause of action against Defendant Nassar (as an agent of Defendant

Twistars) and Defendants Twistars and Geddert at the time his sexual assaults occurred by:

a. Defendant Nassar making a material representation(s) to Plaintiffs involving a past

or existing fact by:

b. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct were a “new

procedure” which involved vaginal penetration;

c. making the statement, referring to his conduct, disguised as “treatment,” as a pelvic

adjustment;

d. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct was “checking your

sternum;”

e. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct was doing a “breast

exam;”

f. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct was “treatment” and

that it was the same that he performed on Olympic athletes;

g. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct was “attempting to

manipulate [their] ribs;” and,

h. making a statement, explaining to Plaintiff and another medical professional that

the position of his hand was in an appropriate place, when it was not and while he

was digitally Plaintiff, all which were made contemporaneously and/or shortly after

the abrupt, sudden, quick, and unexpected sexual assaults by Defendant Nassar.

1446. The material representation(s) to Plaintiffs by Defendant Nassar were false, in that he was

actually performing them for his own sexual gratification and pleasure evidenced by his

observed arousal, flushed face, and closing of the eyes during the conduct.

168

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.169 15:55:43 Page Pg 170 169 of of 239 238

1447. When Defendant Nassar made the material representation(s), he knew that they were false,

in that he knew that the “treatment[s]” were not proper, appropriate, legitimate, and/or

considered within standard of care by any physician of any specialty and/or sports therapist.

1448. Defendant Nassar made the material representation(s) with the intent that the material

representation(s) should be acted upon by Plaintiffs, in that Plaintiffs should:

a. believe that the “treatments” were in fact “treatments,” would believe that the

“treatment[s]” were proper, appropriate, and legitimate;

b. would not believe that they had been sexually assaulted;

c. would not believe that they had been sexually assaulted so that he could prevent

discovery of his sexual assaults;

d. would continue the “treatment[s]” so that he could continue to sexually assault

them;

e. would not question and/or report the conduct to appropriate authorities; and,

f. would not reasonably believe and not be aware of a possible cause of action that

they have against Defendants Nassar, USAG, Twistars and Geddert.

1449. Plaintiffs acted in reliance upon Defendant Nassar’s material representation(s), in that

Plaintiffs:

a. reasonably believed that the “treatments” were in fact “treatments;”

b. reasonably believed that the “treatments” were proper, appropriate, and legitimate;

c. reasonably did not believe that they had been sexually assaulted;

d. believed that they should continue the “treatment[s],”

e. did not believe that they should question and/or report the conduct to appropriate

authorities; and,

169

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.170 15:55:43 Page Pg 171 170 of of 239 238

f. did not reasonably believe that they had and were not aware of a possible cause of

action that they had against Defendants Nassar, USAG, Twistars and Geddert.

1450. Plaintiffs thereby suffered injury, in that Plaintiffs could not stop the sexual assault;

continued to undergo the “treatment[s]” and sexual assaults; and suffered discomfort,

bleeding, urinary tract infections, bacterial infections, related physical manifestations

thereof, sleep deprivation, physical illness, vomiting, severe emotional distress, shock,

humiliation, fright, grief, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, loss of familial

relationships, loss of enjoyment of life and will continue to suffer pain of mind and body,

were prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing Plaintiffs’ daily

activities and obtaining the full enjoyment of life, and have sustained and continue to

sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity.

1451. Defendant Nassar concealing the fraud by making a fraudulent material representation(s)

to Plaintiffs that was/were designed and/or planned to prevent inquiry and escape

investigation and prevent subsequent discovery of his fraud, in that he made a material

representation(s) to Plaintiffs involving a past or existing fact by:

a. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct were a “new

procedure” which involved vaginal penetration;

b. making the statement, referring to his conduct, disguised as “treatment,” as a pelvic

adjustment;

c. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct was “checking your

sternum;”

d. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct was doing a “breast

exam;”

170

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.171 15:55:43 Page Pg 172 171 of of 239 238

e. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct was “treatment” and

that it was the same that he performed on Olympic athletes;

f. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct was “attempting to

manipulate [their] ribs;” and,

g. making a statement, explaining to Plaintiff and another medical professional that

the position of his hand was in an appropriate place, when it was not and while he

was digitally penetrating Plaintiff, all which were made contemporaneously and/or

shortly after the abrupt, sudden, quick, and unexpected sexual assaults by

Defendant Nassar.

1452. Defendant Nassar concealing the fraud by an affirmative act(s) that was/were designed

and/or planned to prevent inquiry and escape investigation and prevent subsequent

discovery of his fraud, in that he:

a. positioned himself in a manner in which parents or chaperones in the room could

not see his conduct, so that he could conceal and prevent discovery of his conduct;

b. dismissed a medical professional from the room, during an examination of Plaintiff

while he was digitally penetrating Plaintiff, who questioned the placement of his

hands;

c. prevented other medical professionals, chaperones, parents, guardians, and/or

caregivers from being in the room during examinations and treatments of Plaintiffs

so that he could sexually assault Plaintiffs;

d. did not abide by or follow the standard and care which requires another medical

professional, chaperone, parent, guardian, and/or caregiver be in the room during

the examination and treatment of minors and female patients;

171

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.172 15:55:43 Page Pg 173 172 of of 239 238

e. did not abide by or follow Defendant USAG’s Code of Ethics, Participant Welfare

Policy, Safety/Risk Management Certification, principles in Gymnastics Risk

Management Safety Course Handbook, and Prohibited Conduct policy, which he

was a part of creating by not examining patients in the presence of a parent,

chaperone, guardian, and/or caregiver;

f. did not abide by or follow Defendant Twistars’ Code of Ethics, Participant Welfare

Policy, Safety/Risk Management Certification, principles in Gymnastics Risk

Management Safety Course Handbook, and Prohibited Conduct policy, which he

was a part of creating by not examining patients in the presence of a parent,

chaperone, guardian, and/or caregiver; and,

g. gave Plaintiffs, at appointments, gifts such as t-shirts, pins, flags, leotards, and other

items, some with USAG logos and others without, in order to gain their trust.

1453. In or around 1998, a parent of a gymnast at Defendant Twistars’ facility complained to

Defendant Geddert, the owner and operator of Defendant Twistars, regarding Defendant

Nassar’s conduct alleging sexual abuse, assault, and molestation.

1454. When Defendant Geddert received the 1998 complaint from the parent, Defendant John

Geddert was the owner and operator of Twistars USA, Inc. d/b/a Geddert’s Twistars

Gymnastics Club USA and also an agent of Defendant USAG.

1455. Also, in or around 1998, after being assaulted at Twistars Plaintiff Jane A71 Doe, at

approximately 12 years old, told a coach at Twistars, Defendant Nassar was being

inappropriate and doing inappropriate things.

1456. To the best of Plaintiff Jane A71 Doe’s knowledge, belief, and understanding, the coach at

Twistars took absolutely no steps to investigate or report Defendant Nassar’s conduct.

172

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.173 15:55:43 Page Pg 174 173 of of 239 238

1457. In or around 2010, Defendant Geddert witnessed a gymnast who was approximately 15

years old being sexual assaulted by Defendant Nassar.62

1458. Upon witnessing the sexual assault, Defendant Geddert made a joke and made a statement

to the gymnast to effect of: “I guess your back really did hurt.”63

1459. In or around 2010, Defendant Geddert was owner and operator of Defendant Twistars.

1460. In or around 2011, Defendant Geddert was traveling in a vehicle with members of the

USAG Senior National Team, including Aly Raisman.64

1461. At the time, Defendant Geddert was serving in his capacity as a USAG Olympic Coach.65

1462. Ms. Raisman indicated she and her teammates would talk about Defendant Nassar’s

conduct amongst themselves.66

1463. While traveling together, in Defendant Geddert’s presence, one of Ms. Raisman’s

teammates described “in graphic detail” what Defendant Nassar had done to her the prior

evening.67

1464. Ms. Raisman stated Defendant Geddert did not question her or her teammate about the

statements made.

1465. Again, in or around 2011, Defendant Geddert was owner and operator of Defendant

Twistars.

1466. As early as 1998, Defendant Twistars through their owner and operator Defendant Geddert

62 Testimony given on May 12, 2017 at the Preliminary Examination hearing in People v. Nassar, Case No. 17-318-FY. 63 Id. 64 Raisman says Olympics coach might have known about Nassar abuse for years, Saba Hamedy, available at https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/08/politics/aly-raisman-coach-allegations/index.html. Last accessed Feb. 8, 2018. 65 Id. 66 Id. 67 Id. 173

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.174 15:55:43 Page Pg 175 174 of of 239 238

had notice of Defendant Nassar’s misconduct and propensity to sexually abuse and assault

girls and young women.

1467. By failing to inform its members of the allegations surrounding Defendant Nassar,

Defendants Twistars and Geddert suppressed Plaintiffs’ discovery of a cause of action.

1468. Defendant Twistars and Geddert’s fiduciary relationships with its members creates a duty

to inform them of prior complaints of sexual abuse by Defendant Nassar, including the

reports made directly to Defendant Geddert and an agent of Defendant Twistars in or

around 1998.

1469. The actions and inactions of Defendant Nassar, as described in the preceding paragraphs,

constituted Fraudulent Concealment.

1470. At all times pertinent to this action, Defendants Nassar and Geddert were agents, apparent

agents, servants, and employees of Defendant Twistars and operated within the scope of

their employment and their Fraudulent Concealment is imputed to Defendant Twistars.

1471. At all material times, Plaintiffs were entirely free of any negligence contributing to the

injuries and damages alleged.

D. DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE

1472. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the previous

paragraphs.

1473. Plaintiffs had a special and fiduciary relationship with Defendant USOC by virtue of being

treated by Nassar (an agent of USOC) at USAG/USOC sanctioned events, and by virutue

of Planitiffs being dues paying members of Defendant USAG, an entity under Defendant

USOC’s control and who also certified USAG as the National Governing Body.

1474. Some Plaintiffs were under the direct supervision and control of USOC or its agents at

174

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.175 15:55:43 Page Pg 176 175 of of 239 238

national and international events and and were in fact in loco parentis with USOC while

receiving “treatment” from Defendant Nassar.

1475. Oftentimes while training (including training at the Karolyi Ranch, a USOC/USAG

sponsored program and sanctioned facility), and while competing at USOC/USAG

sanctioned events Plaintiffs were away from their parents and under the complete care,

custody, and control of USOC.

1476. Given the special and fiduciary relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendant USOC,

Defendant USOC had an affirmative duty to disclose, and to warn and protect their

members who sought Defendant Nassar’s medical treatment from sexual abuse, assault,

and molestation.

1477. Plaintiffs were minors or young adults who trusted Defendant USOC who recommended

Defendant Nassar to provide them with medical services and who also possessed sensitive

and confidential information about their health.

1478. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the Fraud claims made below and hereby allege that

Defendant USOC committed Fraudulent Concealment by committing Fraud, as described

in detail above and below, and concealing the existence of Plaintiffs’ claims and that

Plaintiffs had a cause of action against Defendant Nassar and/or Defendant USOC at the

time his sexual assaults occurred by Defendant Nassar (as Defendant USOC’s employee

or agent) making a material representation(s) to Plaintiffs involving a past or existing fact

by:

a. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct were a “new

procedure” which involved vaginal penetration;

b. making the statement, referring to his conduct, disguised as “treatment,” as a pelvic

175

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.176 15:55:43 Page Pg 177 176 of of 239 238

adjustment;

c. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct was “checking your

sternum;”

d. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct was doing a “breast

exam;”

e. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct was “treatment” and

that it was the same that he performed on Olympic athletes;

f. making the statement, explaining, that his acts and/or conduct was “attempting to

manipulate [their] ribs;” and,

g. making a statement, explaining to Plaintiff and another medical professional that

the position of his hand was in an appropriate place, when it was not and while he

was digitally penetrating Plaintiff, all which were made contemporaneously and/or

shortly after the abrupt, sudden, quick, and unexpected sexual assaults by

Defendant Nassar.

1479. The material representation(s) to Plaintiffs by Defendant Nassar were false, in that he was

actually performing them for his own sexual gratification and pleasure evidenced by his

observed arousal, flushed face, and closing of the eyes during the conduct.

1480. When Defendant Nassar made the material representation(s), he knew that they were false,

in that he knew that the “treatment[s]” were not proper, appropriate, legitimate, and/or

considered within standard of care by any physician of any specialty and/or sports therapist;

1481. Defendant Nassar made the material representation(s) with the intent that the material

representation(s) should be acted upon by Plaintiffs, in that Plaintiffs:

a. would believe that the “treatments” were in fact “treatments;”

176

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.177 15:55:43 Page Pg 178 177 of of 239 238

b. would believe that the “treatment[s]” were proper, appropriate, and legitimate;

c. would not believe that they had been sexually assaulted;

d. should not believe that they had been sexually assaulted so that he could prevent

discovery of his sexual assaults;

e. would continue the “treatment[s]” so that he could continue to sexually assault

them;

f. would not question and/or report the conduct to appropriate authorities; and,

g. would not reasonably believe and not be aware of a possible cause of action that

they have against Defendant Nassar and/or Defendant USOC.

1482. Plaintiffs acted in reliance upon Defendant Nassar’s material representation(s), in that

Plaintiffs:

a. reasonably believed that the “treatments” were in fact “treatments;”

b. reasonably believed that the “treatments” were proper, appropriate, and legitimate;

c. reasonably did not believe that they had been sexually assaulted;

d. believed that they should continue the “treatment[s];”

e. did not believe that they should question and/or report the conduct to appropriate

authorities; and did not reasonably believe that they had and were not aware of a

possible cause of action that they had against Defendant Nassar and/or Defendant

USOC.

1483. Plaintiffs thereby suffered injury, in that Plaintiffs:

a. could not stop the sexual assault;

b. continued to undergo the “treatment[s]” and sexual assaults; and,

c. suffered discomfort, bleeding, urinary tract infections, bacterial infections, related

177

CaseCase 1:18-cv-01055-GJQ-ESC 19-50012 Doc 215-2 Filed ECF 09/05/19 No. 1 filed EOD09/10/18 09/05/19 PageID.178 15:55:43 Page Pg 179 178 of of 239 238