Preview
E-FILED
Andrew F. Pierce (State Bar No. 101889
Gretchen Birkheimer (State Bar No. 222184) 2/20/2018 2:59 PM
PIERCE & SHEARER LLP Clerk of Court
2055 Woodside Road, Suite 110 Superior Court of CA,
Redwood City, CA 94061 County of Santa Clara
Phone: 650) 843-1900
Fax: 650) 843-1999 18CV323960
Email: apierce@pierceshearer.com Reviewed By: A. Hwang
gbirkheimer@pierceshearer.com Envelope:1235933
Attorneys for Petitioner
BALAKANAPATHY RAJARATNAM
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
10
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
11
12
BALAKANAPATHY RAJARATNAM, Case No. 18CV323960
13
mS Petitioner, VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF
ae 14 MANDATE (CCP §1085) OR
8s Vv. ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS (CCP
ae
15 §1094.5)
ty THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
me 16 LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR
UNIVERSITY; PERSIS DRELL, an
BA 17 individual; MARC TESSIER-LA VIGNE, an
individual; AND DOES 1 TO 25, inclusive,
Se 18
Respondents.
MSE 19
20
BALAKANAPATHY RAJARATNAM hereby petitions the Court for a writ off
21
mandate under Code of Civil Procedure §1085, or, in the alternative, administrativel
22
mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure §1094.5, directed to the Board of Trustees of the!
23
Leland Stanford Junior University and Does 1 through 25, inclusive, to as follows:
24
INTRODUCTION
25
1 This action arises out of the Respondent University’s flagrant violation of its|
26
written policies governing faculty member disciplinary proceedings. Stanford University has|
27
promulgated, and incorporated by reference into their faculty members’ employment
28
contracts, a Statement of Faculty Discipline which, when adhered to, ensures that the due
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Case No. 115CV276252
process rights of faculty members accused of misconduct are protected. Before disciplinary
measures such as sanctions or censure may be imposed against the faculty member, the|
Statement on Faculty Discipline requires that he or she receive written charges of the alleged]
misconduct, an opportunity to respond in writing, the opportunity to confront and cross-
examine witnesses, a summary of adverse witness testimony, copies of documentary|
evidence, an expeditious process, and a hearing before the University’s Advisory Board,
Discipline may not be imposed unless the Advisory Board finds that the University has
proved the factual elements of each charge by clear and convincing evidence.
2 Petitioner was an award-winning Assistant Professor of Statistics and Earth|
10 Systems Science at Stanford University. He has a world-class research history and
11 publication record, and his research contributes substantially to understanding of global]
12 warming, through developing statistical methods through atmospheric modeling, and to the
13 national defense. In 2011, Petitioner and his research partner complained of plagiarism of|
ayo
aes 14 their work by the editor of a prominent statistics journal and requested an investigation by the|
BS
ae
ms 2 15 Institute of Mathematical Science, which assigned Stanford Professor and Vice-Dean of the|
Ao 16 School of Sciences and Humanities, Iain Johnstone, to investigate the claim. Johnstone’s
Ae
3 17 report redacted key evidence that the alleged plagiarist had a conflict of interest with the are
Dez
ao 18 of Plaintiff's work and never should have accepted the editing assignment.
Be
19 3 This investigation and its outcome were well known to Stanford administrators|
20 in 2013, when an emotionally disturbed graduate student who had been making advances|
21 toward Petitioner abruptly complained that the obverse was true, i.e., that Petitioner, not the|
22 student, was the sexual harasser. Stanford administrators assigned the graduate student’s
23 allegations to Science and Humanities Dean Richard Saller, a close associate of Johnstone|
24 Rather than complying with the Statement on Faculty Discipline, which would have provide
25 Petitioner a clearly defined set of charges, the opportunity to answer them and confront his|
26 accuser, and a hearing on the merits, Saller and other Stanford administrators engaged in an
27 ad hoc “investigation” which soon veered from the student’s allegations and into the|
28 plagiarism and cover-up claims Petitioner had identified against Vice-Dean Johnstone.
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Case No. 115CV276252
4 The investigation, and Petitioner’s appeals of cach stage thereof, resulted i
disciplinary sanctions against Petitioner which limited, and eventually completely foreclosed,
his ability to mentor or work with graduate and post-doctoral students. Such students are an!
essential part of a professor’s research and publication, and without them, Petitioner’s|
research and publication output would be strangled. In addition to issuance of these!
sanctions, Stanford administrators placed a series of defamatory letters, filled with personal
insults to Petitioner and making lurid reference to the graduate student’s allegations, into
Petitioner’s tenure application file. Knowing that Petitioner’s ability to research and publish!
in future would be severely hampered by the student advising sanctions, his department voted|
10 against tenure. Stanford’s Provost and President affirmed the denial at each stage of
11 Petitioner’s internal appeal process.
12 5 The American Association of University Professors and the American]
13 Mathematical Society reviewed Stanford’s actions in regard to the investigation and]
ad
ns 14 disciplinary process imposed on Petitioner and prepared reports finding that Stanford was ou
RS
as
15 of compliance with its written disciplinary policies, including the Statement on Faculty!
ws
mo
16 Discipline.
ne
Ba 17 6. Petitioner hereby seeks a writ of mandate or writ of administrative mandamus}
ag
Og
ee 18 compelling Stanford to vacate the tenure determinations, remove the letters from the
BS
19 investigation from his file, and proceed with a de novo disciplinary hearing in full compliance|
a 20 with Stanford’s written policies, including the Statement on Faculty Discipline.
21 THE PARTIES
22 7 At all times herein mentioned Plaintiff and Petitioner BALAKANAPATHY|
23 RAJARATNAM (hereinafter “RAJARATNAM” or “PETITIONER”) was an individual
24 residing in the County of Santa Clara and employed as an Assistant Professor of Statistics and|
25 Earth Systems Science at the Leland Stanford Junior University.
26 8 Respondent THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD
27 JUNIOR UNIVERSITY (hereinafter “Stanford” or “Respondent”) was and is a corporate trust]
28
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Case No. 115CV276252
organized under the laws of the State of California and located in the County of Santa Clara,
State of California.
9 Respondent PERSIS DRELL is an individual employed in the County of Santal
Clara and is the Provost of Respondent Stanford.
10. Respondent MARC TESSIER-LAVIGNE is an individual doing business in|
the County of Santa Clara and is the President of Respondent Stanford.
11. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities, whether individual,
corporate or otherwise, of the defendants sued herein as Does 1-25, inclusive, and therefore]
sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon]
10 alleges that each of these fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the
11 occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiffs injuries as herein alleged were proximately,
12 caused by the conduct of the aforementioned defendants.
13 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
aS
as 14 12. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Code of Civil
WS
ay
Be 15 Procedure sections 1085, 1094.5, 187, and 526. This Court has the authority to issue a writ off
Bo
me 16 mandate directing Stanford to vacate and set aside its decision to deny Petitioner’s application]
ne
BA 17 for tenure, to retract its written findings in the concurrent disciplinary proceedings against|
my
ee 18 Petitioner, and to provide Petitioner a de novo disciplinary proceeding in full compliance with]
BS
19 the written disciplinary procedure set forth in Stanford’s Faculty Handbook, under Code off
20 Civil Procedure sections 1085 and 1094.5.
21 13. Venue for this action properly lies in the Santa Clara County Superior Court
22 because Stanford is located and the wrongful acts complained of took place in Santa Claral
23 County.
24 STATEMENT OF FACTS
25 14, Petitioner was hired by Stanford on or about March 28, 2008 as an Assistant
26 Professor of Statistics. A true and correct copy of his offer letter is attached hereto as Exhibit}
27 A
28
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Case No. 115CV276252
15. In March 2010, Petitioner and a co-author submitted a paper on correlation!
screening to an academic journal. Unfortunately, the article was received and reviewed by al
co-chief editor of that journal who had been attempting to solve the same statistical problems
without success for years. Rather than publish the article, the journal editor delayed it and]
only two months later, submitted a paper addressing the same statistical problem, with|
equivalent results, and using the same mathematical tools. Petitioner’s paper was eventually]
published in another journal.
16. Petitioner filed a complaint with the Institute of Mathematical Statistics|
regarding the plagiarism. The matter was sent to a committee that included Iain Johnstone, al
10 Professor of Statistics at Stanford. Johnstone refused to recuse himself despite having a long-|
11 standing personal relationship with the alleged plagiarist, including recent co-authorship of|
12 academic work and having shared the same doctoral advisor. The report ultimately submitted!
13 to the IMS by Johnstone contained redactions, including redaction of an acknowledgement|
Pa
ae 14 that the journal editor should not have handled Petitioner’s paper.
WS
as
15 17. Independent researchers in the field have concluded that the mathematical]
Preview
E-FILED Andrew F. Pierce (State Bar No. 101889 Gretchen Birkheimer (State Bar No. 222184) 2/20/2018 2:59 PM PIERCE & SHEARER LLP Clerk of Court 2055 Woodside Road, Suite 110 Superior Court of CA, Redwood City, CA 94061 County of Santa Clara Phone: 650) 843-1900 Fax: 650) 843-1999 18CV323960 Email: apierce@pierceshearer.com Reviewed By: A. Hwang gbirkheimer@pierceshearer.com Envelope:1235933 Attorneys for Petitioner BALAKANAPATHY RAJARATNAM SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 10 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 11 12 BALAKANAPATHY RAJARATNAM, Case No. 18CV323960 13 mS Petitioner, VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF ae 14 MANDATE (CCP §1085) OR 8s Vv. ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS (CCP ae 15 §1094.5) ty THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE me 16 LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY; PERSIS DRELL, an BA 17 individual; MARC TESSIER-LA VIGNE, an individual; AND DOES 1 TO 25, inclusive, Se 18 Respondents. MSE 19 20 BALAKANAPATHY RAJARATNAM hereby petitions the Court for a writ off 21 mandate under Code of Civil Procedure §1085, or, in the alternative, administrativel 22 mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure §1094.5, directed to the Board of Trustees of the! 23 Leland Stanford Junior University and Does 1 through 25, inclusive, to as follows: 24 INTRODUCTION 25 1 This action arises out of the Respondent University’s flagrant violation of its| 26 written policies governing faculty member disciplinary proceedings. Stanford University has| 27 promulgated, and incorporated by reference into their faculty members’ employment 28 contracts, a Statement of Faculty Discipline which, when adhered to, ensures that the due VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Case No. 115CV276252 process rights of faculty members accused of misconduct are protected. Before disciplinary measures such as sanctions or censure may be imposed against the faculty member, the| Statement on Faculty Discipline requires that he or she receive written charges of the alleged] misconduct, an opportunity to respond in writing, the opportunity to confront and cross- examine witnesses, a summary of adverse witness testimony, copies of documentary| evidence, an expeditious process, and a hearing before the University’s Advisory Board, Discipline may not be imposed unless the Advisory Board finds that the University has proved the factual elements of each charge by clear and convincing evidence. 2 Petitioner was an award-winning Assistant Professor of Statistics and Earth| 10 Systems Science at Stanford University. He has a world-class research history and 11 publication record, and his research contributes substantially to understanding of global] 12 warming, through developing statistical methods through atmospheric modeling, and to the 13 national defense. In 2011, Petitioner and his research partner complained of plagiarism of| ayo aes 14 their work by the editor of a prominent statistics journal and requested an investigation by the| BS ae ms 2 15 Institute of Mathematical Science, which assigned Stanford Professor and Vice-Dean of the| Ao 16 School of Sciences and Humanities, Iain Johnstone, to investigate the claim. Johnstone’s Ae 3 17 report redacted key evidence that the alleged plagiarist had a conflict of interest with the are Dez ao 18 of Plaintiff's work and never should have accepted the editing assignment. Be 19 3 This investigation and its outcome were well known to Stanford administrators| 20 in 2013, when an emotionally disturbed graduate student who had been making advances| 21 toward Petitioner abruptly complained that the obverse was true, i.e., that Petitioner, not the| 22 student, was the sexual harasser. Stanford administrators assigned the graduate student’s 23 allegations to Science and Humanities Dean Richard Saller, a close associate of Johnstone| 24 Rather than complying with the Statement on Faculty Discipline, which would have provide 25 Petitioner a clearly defined set of charges, the opportunity to answer them and confront his| 26 accuser, and a hearing on the merits, Saller and other Stanford administrators engaged in an 27 ad hoc “investigation” which soon veered from the student’s allegations and into the| 28 plagiarism and cover-up claims Petitioner had identified against Vice-Dean Johnstone. VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Case No. 115CV276252 4 The investigation, and Petitioner’s appeals of cach stage thereof, resulted i disciplinary sanctions against Petitioner which limited, and eventually completely foreclosed, his ability to mentor or work with graduate and post-doctoral students. Such students are an! essential part of a professor’s research and publication, and without them, Petitioner’s| research and publication output would be strangled. In addition to issuance of these! sanctions, Stanford administrators placed a series of defamatory letters, filled with personal insults to Petitioner and making lurid reference to the graduate student’s allegations, into Petitioner’s tenure application file. Knowing that Petitioner’s ability to research and publish! in future would be severely hampered by the student advising sanctions, his department voted| 10 against tenure. Stanford’s Provost and President affirmed the denial at each stage of 11 Petitioner’s internal appeal process. 12 5 The American Association of University Professors and the American] 13 Mathematical Society reviewed Stanford’s actions in regard to the investigation and] ad ns 14 disciplinary process imposed on Petitioner and prepared reports finding that Stanford was ou RS as 15 of compliance with its written disciplinary policies, including the Statement on Faculty! ws mo 16 Discipline. ne Ba 17 6. Petitioner hereby seeks a writ of mandate or writ of administrative mandamus} ag Og ee 18 compelling Stanford to vacate the tenure determinations, remove the letters from the BS 19 investigation from his file, and proceed with a de novo disciplinary hearing in full compliance| a 20 with Stanford’s written policies, including the Statement on Faculty Discipline. 21 THE PARTIES 22 7 At all times herein mentioned Plaintiff and Petitioner BALAKANAPATHY| 23 RAJARATNAM (hereinafter “RAJARATNAM” or “PETITIONER”) was an individual 24 residing in the County of Santa Clara and employed as an Assistant Professor of Statistics and| 25 Earth Systems Science at the Leland Stanford Junior University. 26 8 Respondent THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD 27 JUNIOR UNIVERSITY (hereinafter “Stanford” or “Respondent”) was and is a corporate trust] 28 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Case No. 115CV276252 organized under the laws of the State of California and located in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 9 Respondent PERSIS DRELL is an individual employed in the County of Santal Clara and is the Provost of Respondent Stanford. 10. Respondent MARC TESSIER-LAVIGNE is an individual doing business in| the County of Santa Clara and is the President of Respondent Stanford. 11. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate or otherwise, of the defendants sued herein as Does 1-25, inclusive, and therefore] sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon] 10 alleges that each of these fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the 11 occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiffs injuries as herein alleged were proximately, 12 caused by the conduct of the aforementioned defendants. 13 JURISDICTION AND VENUE aS as 14 12. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Code of Civil WS ay Be 15 Procedure sections 1085, 1094.5, 187, and 526. This Court has the authority to issue a writ off Bo me 16 mandate directing Stanford to vacate and set aside its decision to deny Petitioner’s application] ne BA 17 for tenure, to retract its written findings in the concurrent disciplinary proceedings against| my ee 18 Petitioner, and to provide Petitioner a de novo disciplinary proceeding in full compliance with] BS 19 the written disciplinary procedure set forth in Stanford’s Faculty Handbook, under Code off 20 Civil Procedure sections 1085 and 1094.5. 21 13. Venue for this action properly lies in the Santa Clara County Superior Court 22 because Stanford is located and the wrongful acts complained of took place in Santa Claral 23 County. 24 STATEMENT OF FACTS 25 14, Petitioner was hired by Stanford on or about March 28, 2008 as an Assistant 26 Professor of Statistics. A true and correct copy of his offer letter is attached hereto as Exhibit} 27 A 28 VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Case No. 115CV276252 15. In March 2010, Petitioner and a co-author submitted a paper on correlation! screening to an academic journal. Unfortunately, the article was received and reviewed by al co-chief editor of that journal who had been attempting to solve the same statistical problems without success for years. Rather than publish the article, the journal editor delayed it and] only two months later, submitted a paper addressing the same statistical problem, with| equivalent results, and using the same mathematical tools. Petitioner’s paper was eventually] published in another journal. 16. Petitioner filed a complaint with the Institute of Mathematical Statistics| regarding the plagiarism. The matter was sent to a committee that included Iain Johnstone, al 10 Professor of Statistics at Stanford. Johnstone refused to recuse himself despite having a long-| 11 standing personal relationship with the alleged plagiarist, including recent co-authorship of| 12 academic work and having shared the same doctoral advisor. The report ultimately submitted! 13 to the IMS by Johnstone contained redactions, including redaction of an acknowledgement| Pa ae 14 that the journal editor should not have handled Petitioner’s paper. WS as 15 17. Independent researchers in the field have concluded that the mathematical]