Austin v. Fordham University
- Gary Stein
- 1:23-cv-04696
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Austin v. Fordham University, Judge Gary Stein set deadlines and a discovery conference on Austin’s request to keep Sweeney out of his deposition room.
Francis Austin and Patrick Sweeney are directly affected by the scheduling order concerning Sweeney’s attendance at Austin’s deposition; Fordham University is the defendant in the underlying case.
What happened
In Austin v. Fordham University, Francis Austin asked the court to prevent third-party defendant Patrick Sweeney from attending Austin’s deposition in person. Austin’s lawyers said Austin alleges that Sweeney raped and sexually assaulted him, and that seeing Sweeney could cause severe emotional distress and interfere with his testimony.
Austin proposed that Sweeney attend remotely through a live one-way audio or video feed. Austin relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which allows courts to limit who may be present during discovery to protect against harm or undue burden. Sweeney opposed the request and said he intended to attend in person.
Judge Gary Stein ordered Sweeney’s response to the issues raised in the letter by June 24, 2024, and set a discovery-dispute conference by Microsoft Teams for June 25, 2024. The text provided does not show that the court granted or denied the requested protective order.
The detailed version
- Austin v. Fordham University · No. 1:23-cv-04696
- Gary Stein
- June 21, 2024
Nature of the filing
The provided text is a letter from counsel for plaintiff Francis Austin, endorsed by Judge Gary Stein. It concerns an urgent discovery dispute about Patrick Sweeney’s proposed in-person attendance at Austin’s July 2, 2024 deposition. The endorsement orders Sweeney’s response by Monday, June 24, 2024, and sets a discovery-dispute conference by Microsoft Teams for Tuesday, June 25, 2024, at 3:30 p.m.
Austin’s request
Austin asked for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(E). A protective order is a court order limiting discovery procedures to protect a person from oppression, embarrassment, or undue burden. Austin specifically asked the court to prohibit Sweeney from attending the deposition in person while allowing Sweeney to observe remotely through a live one-way audio or video feed.
The letter states that Austin alleges Fordham University failed to protect him from Sweeney, who Austin alleges violently raped and sexually assaulted him at Fordham. It also states that Austin alleges he has experienced severe post-traumatic stress disorder, suicidal thoughts, intrusive memories, physical reactions, and nightmares. According to Austin’s lawyers, having Sweeney in the same room could intimidate Austin and impair his ability to testify.
Arguments about the proposed accommodation
Austin’s lawyers cited decisions recognizing that a court may restrict a party’s physical presence at a deposition when that presence could cause emotional harm or intimidation. They argued that remote attendance would allow Sweeney to observe the deposition and communicate with counsel while avoiding an in-person confrontation. The letter states that Sweeney had not explained why he needed to attend in person or how remote participation would interfere with his or his lawyer’s participation.
Court action and disposition
Judge Gary Stein did not, in the provided text, grant or deny Austin’s requested protective order. The court instead required Sweeney’s response and scheduled a discovery-dispute conference. This is a discovery-related procedural order, not a decision on the underlying allegations against Fordham or Sweeney.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.