SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER FL0M LLP 55 NORTH WACKER DRIVE OFFICES CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606-1720 HOUSTON TEL: (312) 407-0700 L05 ANGELES NEW YORK FAX: (BIZ) 407-04 I PALO ALTO WASHINGTON. D.C. BEIJING BRUSSELS FRANKFURT HONG KONG LONDON MOSCOW MUNICH PARIS DIRECT DIAL SAD PAULO (3 I 2) 407-0508 seam. DIRECT FAX SHANGHAI <3 I 2) 827-9820 SINGAPORE EMAIL ADDRESS SYD EY TOKYO TORONTO December 6, 2017 The Honorable Bill Schuette Attorney General of Michigan 525 W. Ottawa Street PO. Box 30212 Lansing, MI 48909 Dear Attorney General Schuette: 'We represent Michigan State University or ?University?), and write in response to your letter of December 4, 2017, to Lou Anna K. SimOn, President of MSU. By way of background, the law ?rms of Skadden, Alps, Slate, Meagher, and Flom LLP and Miller, Can?eld, Paddock, and Stone P.L.C. were retained last year to assist MSU in responding to allegations of misconduct concerning Dr. Larry Nassar. The ?rms were retained to facilitate cooperation with appropriate law enforcement and regulatory authorities, counsel MSU on any internal reviews conducted to make sure they were carried out in a manner that will best assist the University?s response and not compromise any law enforcement or regulatory actions concerning Nassar, and to provide advice and assistance in anticipation of and with respect to any civil litigation. As part of that effort, the ?rms were tasked with reviewing the underlying facts. At all times, MSU and the law ?rms have been acutely aware of the egregious nature of Nassar?s conduct and the need to cooperate with law enforcement. From the beginning, MSU directed the law ?rms that if in the course of their representation they found any evidence that anyone at MSU other than Nassar knew ofNassar?s criminal behavior and did anything to conceal or Attorney General Schuette December 6, 2017 Page 2 facilitate it, then that evidence of criminal conduct would be reported immediately to the MSU administration, the Board of Trustees, and to appropriate law enforcement authorities. Given the confusion caused by a press campaign involving some of plaintiffs? counsel, we provide some clarifying context First, plaintiffs? counsel have publicly compared this case with the matter involving Penn State University.1 Although both involve horrible actions by disturbed individuals?Sandusky and Nassar?the role ofthe University here is different. In the Penn State matter, it appears that high-ranking of?cials were aware of sexual abuse by an employee, decided to report the abuse to law enforcement, and then changed their minds and did not report the abuse. As a result of their conscious decision not to rep01t sexual abuse of which they were clearly aware, the abuse continued. For that conduct, certain of?cials have-been criminally convicted. In the MSU matter, we believe the evidence will show that no MSU of?cial believed that Nassar committed sexual-abuse prior to newspaper reports in late summer 2016. Indeed, even after reports of sexual abuse surfaced in the press and MSU ?red Nassar, many in the community strongly disbelieved the allegations given that Nassar lived a ?double-life,? as the United States Attorney?s Office aptly described it in a recently ?led sentencing memo.2. On the surface, Nassar was a world?renowned doctor for elite athletes, a husband, and .a father. But underneath that veneer lurked a predator. It is clear that Nassar fooled everyone around him?patients, friends, colleagues, and fellow doctors at MSU. While many in the community today wish that they had identified Nassar as a predator, we believe the evidence in this case will show that no one else at MSU knew that Nassar engaged in criminal behavior. On a number of occasions, Nassar was even devious enough to deceive parents who were present in the room during the abuse. Given those facts, to malign University administrators by asserting that they must have known about Nassar?s misconduct and assume that they behaved like criminals in a cover-up is just flat wrong.3 Yet plaintiffs? attorneys have used 1 See, Press Release, Manly, Stewart, Finaldy, Victim?s Attorneys Manly, Stewart Finaldi Demand Release of Michigan State University?s Internal Investigation of Larry Nassar Case (Oct. 4, 2017), Press-Release.pdf; Press Release, David Mittleman, MSU to Take a Cue from (Mar. 13, 2017) 2 US. Sentencing Mem. at 6, United States v. Nassar, No. (W.D. Mich. Nov. 30, 2017), ECF. No. 44. See, e. Ex-Jurupa Valley player sues doctor, alleges'abuse, The Press Enterprise (Dec. 21, 20 16), Press Release, David Mittleman, MSU and Twistars Enabled Larry Nassar?s Ability to Sexually Attorney General Schuette December 6, 2017 Page 3 baseless allegations of c1iminal conduct and a cove1?up to mount a campaign to force MSU to divulge information publicly so that they can continue to try their case in the press. The confusion has gotten to the point where a press article can decry the lack of an independent investigation while casually mentioning? twice that fact there was an FBI investigation. And the same article notes that the FBI review led to no chai ges without allowing for the idea that the lack of charges might re?ect that there was no criminal coverup. Like any other attorney-client relationship, it was and is important for MSU to maintain applicable privileges when facing litigation that according to one plaintiffs? counsel, could cost MSU over $1 billion}; We will not be goaded into doing otherwise by plaintiffs attorneys. We intend to continue to represent MSU appropriately in this matter to avoid a legal judgment against the University that is not supported by the law and which, by one'plaintiffs? lawyer?s calculation, would be very costly for a great University that has a duty to serve the citizens of the state of Michigan. - As to the demands by plaintiffs? counsel for an ?investigative report,? MSU cannot produce an investigative report for a simple reason: as has been stated publicly before, there is no investigative report. The law ?rms were retained to represent MSU in its response to allegations related to Nassar?s misconduct and to review the underlying facts and disclose any evidence that others knowingly assisted or concealed his criminal conduct. Had we found such conduct, we would have reported such evidence to law enforcement And much as there is no ?investigative report,? there is no document that constitutes ?Fitzgerald ?ndings.? Regardless, we emphasize that MSU has been and remains ready, willing, and able to cooperate with any inquiry by the United States Attorney?s Of?ce, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Michigan State Police, and your Of?ce. If Assault, Abuse, and Molest Young Girls (Jan. 16, 2017), - s? See, e. Nassar AcCusers to address media qfter plea hearing Wednesday, WILX News (Nov. 22, 2017), Nolan Finley, MS cost in gymnast abuse scandal could top $13, Detroit News, (Dec. 2, 2017), su? gymnast-scandal/l 08247652/ 5 Id. Attorney General Schuette December 6, 2017 Page 4 either you or any member of your staff would like to be briefed on our internal review and how it relates to any aspect of your criminal inquiry, pursuant to a procedure which does not waive any applicable privileges in civil litigation, we are more than willing to do so at your earliest convenience. Indeed, while your letter asked for a brie?ng upon the conclusion of our review, we are willing to provide a brie?ng in advance of that time if you would prefer. Sincerely, ?aw/I Patrick J. Fitzgerald cc: Col. Kriste Kibbey Etue, Michigan State Police Special Agent in Charge David P. Gelios, FBI US. Attorney Andrew B. Birge, Western District of Michigan