CSC’s Cooperation Policy

Last Revised November 25, 2025

Policy on Cooperation by Institutions and Institutional Officials in Investigations Conducted by the College Sports Commission

All Institutions and Institutional Officials (as defined herein) have an obligation to cooperate fully and promptly with investigations conducted by the College Sports Commission (“CSC”). In addition, Institutions must (a) direct, and use best efforts to cause, their Institutional Officials, student-athletes, license holders, and Associated Entities and Individuals to cooperate fully and promptly with such investigations; and (b) encourage any other third parties to cooperate fully and promptly with such investigations.

Institutions and Institutional Officials who obstruct or otherwise fail to cooperate with an investigation will be subject to discipline by the CSC at its discretion, and the CSC may draw an adverse inference against the Institution and Institutional Official based on this conduct. An Institution [or Institutional Official] may challenge discipline issued for failure to cooperate as described herein.

Student-athlete cooperation is not the subject of this policy.

Definitions

“Associated Entities and Individuals” has the same meaning as in the Fourth Amended Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, dated May 7, 2025, in connection with the resolution of claims in the United States District Court, Northern District of California (Oakland Division), Case No. 4:20-cv-03919-CW on the terms set forth in Appendix A of the Settlement Agreement (the “Injunctive Relief Settlement”).

“Communications” means any and all forms of voice, written, or electronic interaction, including but not limited to voicemail, e-mail, instant messages (e.g., Slack, WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram), text messages (e.g., MMS, SMS), iMessages, photographs exchanged within messages, video messages, and messages via social media (e.g., “X” (formerly Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok), as well as any recordings of communications or documents reflecting such communications.

“Documents” means any hard copy or electronic material, in any form, including but not limited to notes, letters, electronic data, photographs, audio files, videos, and any form of financial records.

“Electronic Devices” means computers, cell phones, smart phones, mobile devices, wireless devices, smart watches, tablets, and similar electronic equipment.

“Institution” means any college, school, or university that has opted into the Injunctive Relief Settlement, together with any entity owned, controlled, funded, or operated by said college, school, or university (or any division or department thereof).

“Institutional Officials” means an Institution’s directors, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, but, for purposes of this policy, not its student-athletes.

Scope of Obligation to Cooperate

1. Requests for Information
   1. Obligation to Preserve Documents and Communications. When an Institution is notified by the CSC that the CSC is conducting an investigation that pertains to the Institution or its Institutional Officials, the Institution must – unless the CSC explicitly directs the Institution to do otherwise – notify in writing all Institutional Officials who may have been involved with the matter or have potentially relevant information about the matter that they must preserve all hard copy and electronic documents and communications. Once notified, Institutional Officials have an obligation to preserve the documents and communications.
   2. Obligation to Produce Documents and Communications. Institutions and Institutional Officials are required to promptly and fully respond to all requests for information from the CSC or its representatives, including by meeting the CSC’s deadlines for production of information and by producing documents in native format when requested. All requested documents and communications must be provided to the CSC’s appointed investigators unless the Institution or Institutional Official claims that the items are protected from disclosure pursuant to a recognized legal privilege, such as the attorney-client privilege.If an Institution or Institutional Official withholds documents or communications based on a claim that they are protected by such a legal privilege, the Institution or Institutional Official asserting the privilege must provide a privilege log describing the documents and communications being withheld (e.g., the date, sender, recipient and general subject matter) and the legal privilege that is the basis for non-disclosure (e.g., attorney-client privilege or work product).If the CSC disagrees with a claim of privilege, the CSC will provide a written explanation of its position to the Institution or Institutional Official and provide a reasonable opportunity for the Institution or Institutional Official to respond. Then, after receiving any such response(s), and considering all of the information and arguments submitted on the matter, the CSC will decide whether or not the documents or information that are the subject of the asserted privilege must be disclosed and, if so, on what terms.If, after being ordered by the CSC to produce the requested documents or information, the Institution or Institutional Official still does not produce the requested information, the CSC may draw an adverse inference against the Institution or Institutional Official based on the non-disclosure, but the CSC will not impose independent discipline based solely on the failure to provide the purportedly privileged documents nor will it seek to compel production through other means.
   3. Forensic Examination of Electronic Devices. Institutions and Institutional Officials are required to promptly make available for forensic inspection by representatives of the CSC any Electronic Devices that the CSC’s investigators believe in good faith may contain information potentially relevant to the investigation, regardless of whether the devices were issued by the Institution.Any Institution or Institutional Official who objects to turning over an Electronic Device for inspection may request that the CSC limit the scope or manner of the data collection from the Electronic Device (e.g., that a third-party vendor, rather than the CSC’s investigators, conduct the forensic examination, or that only certain parts of the device be searched), and the CSC must consider the request. However, the ultimate decision regarding who will conduct the examination of the Electronic Device, and the scope of the examination, will rest with the CSC, and its decision will be final and binding.
   4. Cell Phone, Text Message and Electronic Communication Records. Institutions and Institutional Officials are required to promptly authorize the CSC’s investigators to obtain cell phone, text message and electronic communication records from any applicable carriers or, at the request of the investigators, provide original records obtained from the carriers to the investigators.
   5. Documents and Information in the Possession of Third Parties. Upon the CSC’s request, Institutions and Institutional Officials are required to promptly authorize and direct all third parties, including but not limited to cell phone, internet, and e-mail service providers; social media entities; financial institutions; accountants; auditors; vendors; and independent contractors to provide to the CSC’s investigators all documents and communications in their possession that the Institution or Institutional Official has the right to receive upon request.More broadly, Institutions and Institutional Officials are required to (a) direct, and use best efforts to cause, their Institutional Officials, student-athletes, license holders, and Associated Entities and Individuals to provide documents and information relevant to investigations to the CSC investigators; and (b) encourage any other third parties to do the same.
2. Interviews
   1. Obligation. All Institutional Officials have an obligation to promptly make themselves available for interviews by the CSC’s investigators. Institutional Officials must answer fully and truthfully all questions posed to them during an interview conducted by the CSC unless the information sought is asserted to be protected by a recognized legal privilege, such as the attorney-client privilege. Institutional Officials may not rely on the privilege against self-incrimination under state or federal law to avoid providing information during an interview conducted by the CSC.
   2. Presence of Legal Counsel. Personal attorneys of the Institutional Official being interviewed are permitted to attend the official’s interview. An Institution’s in-house legal counsel or outside counsel will be permitted to attend an Institutional Official’s interview unless (a) the CSC determines that participation by the Institution’s counsel is likely to have a chilling effect on the Institutional Official (e.g., a whistleblower); or (b) the Institutional Official objects to the presence of the Institution’s counsel.
   3. Scheduling. The CSC will seek to schedule interviews with Institutional Officials on dates and times that are convenient and will aim to provide advance notice of several days (or more) when possible. If the parties cannot reach agreement on a date and time, Institutional Officials must make themselves available for interviews on the date and time noticed by the CSC, provided that at least 48 hours’ notice is provided.
   4. Service Providers and Third Parties. Institutions and Institutional Officials must (a) direct, authorize, and use best efforts to cause their Institutional Officials, student-athletes, license holders, and Associated Entities and Individuals to be interviewed by the CSC’s investigators at the CSC’s request; and (b) encourage any other third parties to do the same.
   5. Format of Interview. The CSC’s investigators shall determine the format of the interview in their sole discretion, but they will consider any preferences expressed by an Institution or Institutional Official.

Discipline and Adverse Inferences for Failure to Cooperate. The CSC will determine whether Institutions and Institutional Officials have fulfilled their cooperation obligations as described in this policy. Institutions and Institutional Officials who fail to comply with this policy will be subject to discipline by the CSC, and the CSC may draw an adverse inference against the Institution and Institutional Official based on the failure.

Examples of conduct that may result in discipline or an adverse inference include but are not limited to: failing to preserve or produce documents and communications after being instructed to do so, refusing to appear for an interview, refusing to answer questions or invoking the privilege against self-incrimination in order to avoid answering questions, failing to tell the complete truth or answering questions evasively, and failing to direct others to cooperate.

For avoidance of doubt, the CSC shall have the discretion to draw an adverse inference, if appropriate, based on a refusal by any individual to cooperate with an investigation and by any third party to provide documents or communications. The CSC may also draw an adverse inference if evidence is unavailable because Institutional Officials used communication applications with enabled auto-deletion settings to communicate regarding matters under the CSC’s investigative and oversight purview.

Challenge to Discipline. Any determination as to whether Institutions and Institutional Officials have fulfilled their cooperation obligations, and any determination regarding any resulting discipline or adverse inferences to be drawn, will be made in the first instance by the CSC in its sole discretion. An Institution or Institutional Official may challenge discipline issued for failure to cooperate either (a) in accordance with the arbitration rules and procedures for disputes with Institutions set forth on the CSC’s website; or (b) by requesting the Chief Executive Officer of the CSC to reconsider the decision or penalties imposed, and such mutually exclusive options (a) and (b) shall be the sole recourse available to challenge any such discipline.

Individuals Conducting Investigations. The CSC’s investigations team, with oversight by the CSC’s legal staff, will conduct most investigations. In rare circumstances, the CSC may decide to retain an outside law firm or investigative firm to conduct an investigation into a particular matter.

Participant Agreement. The requirements in this policy provide more detail to, and are consistent with, the cooperation obligations briefly described in the Participant Agreement for Institutions. If anything in this policy is read to conflict with an Institution’s Participant Agreement, however, the Participant Agreement shall control. Moreover, nothing in this policy should be read to limit cooperation obligations described in the Participant Agreement or NCAA bylaws.