No kidding, the school would like to force the family to settle out of court. There is the issue of publicity during the trial and the unknown size of the award that might be made following a court trial.
There are some public elements of the story that go against St. Paul’s School by inference. Labrie’s lawyer, Carney, tried out the argument that St. Paul’s was effectively “throwing Labrie under the bus,” because he was neither rich nor connected. To me, this suggests that someone (Labrie? Carney? both?) thought that rich and or/connected students would not experience serious repercussions for similar behavior. Why? It also seems to me that Labrie thought that he could get away with what he did. Why?
This says nothing of the statements in the plaintiff’s filing.