Babak Babakinejad

Babak wasn't cancelled at all, but I am sympathetic to him. He is a whistleblower at MIT who has sued MIT.

Articles

• "M.I.T. Media Lab, Already Rattled by... ," The New York Times (2019).

• "Four stories that illustrate why whistleblowers need more protection," Times Higher Education, May 24, 2023, Mark Geoghegan.

"Babak Babakinejad was the research lead on the now disbanded OpenAg (Open Agriculture) project at MIT’s Media Lab (formerly sponsored by Jeffrey Epstein). The project was an open-source food computer meant to revolutionise the hydroponic growth of food, and MIT claimed (falsely) that it was deployed in a refugee camp. Babak queried the legitimacy of the claims and alleged that waste containing many times the legal limit of nitrogen was being dumped into groundwater, potentially contaminating private wells. For Babak, the worst low was when, while on medical leave after suffering panic attacks, his attorney reported that the MIT lawyer told him, “Good luck to his career if he decides to sue MIT”."

• "Judge in whistleblower lawsuit against MIT hears pre-trial arguments," Boston Business Journal, Don Seiffert (Feb. 7, 2023).

"This case centres on allegations that Plaintiff, a former Research Scientist and Research Lead at MIT's Open Agriculture Initiative (OpenAg), wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy, as well as other serious and illegal matters. Plaintiff raised concerns about research misconduct, fraudulent fundraising, and other illegal activities at MIT, including endangering public health and safety through illegal chemical discharges into the sources of drinking waters of Massachusetts residents.

2. A critical element of Plaintiff's case is the connection between his employment, termination, and fraudulent fundraising activities by MIT. Plaintiff asserts that their termination was not merely a reaction to whistleblowing, but also a consequence of the institutional complicity and potential impact of these disclosures on MIT’s officers and senior leadership who had been leveraging the OpenAg for years as a key tool in their fundraising and promotional activities, underlying Defendant’s motives. Such consequences were critical in precipitating Plaintiff’s termination, and egregiousness of MIT’s conduct and continued complicity, to improperly obscure essential details important for Plaintiff in this lawsuit" (Babak's motion for default judgement and motion for discovery (2-22-2024))

Court Documents

Anyone can get free documents from [1] the Middlesex County Superior Court. Case Number 2181CV01904.

• The docket as of February 29, 2024

• Amended Complaint
  • Answer of MIT (2-24-2022)

• The Court: "The plaintiff alleges that MIT wrongfully terminated him in violation of public policy because it terminated him after he raised concerns about research misconduct related to the "Food Computer" project at MIT, fundraising misconduct (raising funds based on misrepresenting technology and the status of research), and environmental misconduct related to unlawful discharges, also related to the same project. Presently before the court are MIT's motion for protective order and plaintiff's motion to compel, concerning plaintiff's discovery requests. After an initial hearing, at which I instructed counsel to confer regarding phasing and timing of discovery, counsel for the parties have made significant progress. At a hearing on June 21, 2023, counsel for the parties outlined for the court MIT's agreement to produce certain responsive documents, on a rolling basis, once a search of electronic records for a negotiated set of custodians occurred. As discussed at the hearing, the parties should continue to carry out the agreed-upon discovery. Certain issues concerning the appropriate scope of discovery remain and, after hearing, this order provides a ruling on certain of those disputes, to be incorporated by the parties as they continue through discovery. Both parties reserve their rights to revisit issues concerning the scope of discovery as the case progresses.
  

1. Date Range: For all claims, the parties shall use the date range of January 1, 2017 through June 6, 2022, which is a few months more than MIT has suggested, but does not adopt a longer time frame for environmental issues as plaintiff has suggested.
2. Financial Information regarding Fundraising for the Food Computer Project. I agree with MIT that it need not identify donors or the amount given by any particular donor. I agree with plaintiff, however, that he is entitled to discover the overall magnitude/scope of fundraising for the project. MIT shall produce documents sufficient to identify: i) any fundraising goal(s) established by MIT for the project; and (ii) the total amount raised for the project. This information may take the form of documents, or an answer to an interrogatory.
3. Custodians for purposes of document search. The parties are very close on this issue. Reserving all rights with respect to a demonstrated need for additional custodians, the initial list of custodians shall be the seventeen persons identified by MIT, plus two additional persons, namely, David Zak and Whitney Burke, identified as "assistants" to the principal researcher, Caleb Harper.
4. The Discovery deadline in this case will be February 29, 2024. To be clear, the parties have committed to a rolling discovery process , which will begin promptly, acknowledging that the custodian search must first occur. To gauge the progress of rolling discovery, the clerk will schedule a discovery/status conference (via ZOOM) in or after August 2023.
5. The motion for protective order concerning "research misconduct" materials is reserved; no action taken at this time. I need to evaluate more exhaustively the case law on this point before ruling, but did not want to delay issuance of the other aspects of this decision. I will rule separately on the issue whether MIT's investigation into research misconduct is confidential and insulated from discovery. This aspect of the motion for protective order remains under advisement. So ordered. Dated June 23, 2023"

• • MIT's status report on discovery, which it did not tell Babak about. Informing the other side is not a legal requirement, but I think it should be a common courtesy. I wonder what the custom is in Middlesex County?
  • Babal's response to MIT's Status Report on Discovery" (November 29, 2023). Babak claims MIT is witholding documents improperly, and complains about not being notified of MIT's status report.

• The Court: "MIT's motion for a protective order to avoid discovery of documents and information pertaining to MIT's investigation of research misconduct by Caleb Harper (plaintiff's former boss), is denied. Plaintiff is reminded that the protective order entered in this case restricts the disclosure and use of confidential information produced in this action. These restrictions are especially salient here because the research misconduct documents concern confidential employment information of persons who are not parties to this lawsuit.

So Ordered. December 6, 2023"

• Babak's motion for default judgement and motion for discovery (2-22-2024). Babak filed the motion in January, but without serving MIT. "Plaintiff wishes to emphasize that MIT fully possesses the capability to produce the required documents. This fact is particularly evident in the case of the research misconduct report, which, as the Court is aware, was concluded in 2021. This report's existence and MIT’s failure to produce it, is the clearest possible indication that MIT's omissions are deliberately and willfully disobedient."
  • MIT's opposition to Babak's motion for default judgement and motion for discovery (2-22-2024). Babak didn't include a brief and exhibits/affidavits, breaking rule 9A.
  • Babak's Reply to MIT's opposition (2-22-2024)