YOUNGSTOWN — The Ursuline High School federal hazing lawsuit, the first of several lawsuits filed against the school in recent months, has had a large number of filings throughout this month, including a filing called a “discovery plan” that raises questions about commentary on the litigation on the Chandra Law Firm’s website.

A discovery plan is proposed to the judge by the parties on matters such as when evidence in the case should be turned over to the other parties in the case. The document dated Friday states that attorneys for the plaintiffs and defendants met Dec. 2 and are proposing to Judge Benita Y. Pearson of U.S. District Court that the case be placed on the “complex” track.

Deadlines contained in the document suggest that the case is likely to continue into 2027, listing a proposed deadline for expert reports to be filed by April 9, 2027, and responses to those reports be filed by June 11, 2027.

The filing states that the Ursuline defendants wish to discuss at a discovery plan “conference” involving the attorneys in the case “limitations on public statements, appearances and publications in other press outlets.”

The defendants specifically mention the Chandra Law Firm “blog” and “social media” that updates anyone who pulls up the website on the latest developments in the lawsuits. The defendants “request an opportunity to brief the issue for the Court’s consideration,” the discovery plan states.

The attorneys for the Chandra Law firm provided a rebuttal statement, which says all of the content mentioned “complies with” Ohio Professional Conduct rules and “First Amendment caselaw” and fulfills the law firm’s “U.S. Supreme Court-acknowledged legal-advocacy obligations as advocates for their clients.”

It states that the blog and social media enable the law firm to call for witnesses and victims to come forward, adding that “numerous victims and witnesses have (come forward) since this case was filed on Sept. 23, 2025, with others coming forward as recently as this week.” The plaintiff’s rebuttal notes that its lawyers are, in fact, investigating and “believe another lawsuit may be filed soon.”

The plaintiffs’ rebuttal urges the judge to handle only such issues within the normal course of filing motions and responses rather than through the discovery plan. In that way, the Chandra Law Firm can “thoroughly respond with facts, justifications and applicable law,” it states.

The discovery plan is signed by attorneys for the plaintiffs, Subodh Chandra, Alexandra Lavelle and Martin Desmond, as well as six attorneys representing the defendants, Victor Geraci, Jacob Kelly, Justin Greenfelder, Patrick Rahill, Irene Makridis and Sandra Zerrusen.

The document was served upon several Ursuline parent and grandparent defendants, who it states are pro se, meaning not represented by an attorney.

The Chandra Law Firm has filed three federal lawsuits naming Ursuline High School and others associated with the school as defendants since September and one lawsuit in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court.

The first lawsuit alleged hazing of an Ursuline football player by other Ursuline football players, while the second lawsuit alleged sexual harassment of a female Ursuline student by an Ursuline football player. The third lawsuit alleged misconduct against an openly gay Ursuline freshman boy. The fourth lawsuit alleged that warnings to school officials about a planned physical attack on a female Ursuline student during the lunch period were not enough to prevent the attack.