Mitchem, Jr. v. New York University
- Katharine Parker
- 1:23-cv-07320
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Mitchem, Jr. v. New York University: Judge Furman largely denied Mitchem’s discovery request but required broader records about race-related complaints against Stuart Robinson.
Emery Mitchem, Jr. received a limited expansion of the discovery he sought. New York University must produce documents concerning complaints against Stuart Robinson that are conceivably related to race discrimination or race-based harassment, and both sides must discuss search terms and next steps.
What happened
In Mitchem, Jr. v. New York University, Emery Mitchem, Jr. asked for documents about all employment-discrimination and harassment complaints against Stuart Robinson, his former boss at New York University. Mitchem’s case alleges race discrimination, a hostile work environment, and unequal pay.
The court largely denied Mitchem’s letter-motion. It made one exception: NYU must produce documents about complaints that could reasonably relate to race discrimination or race-based harassment, even if the complaints were not specifically labeled as race-discrimination complaints. The parties must meet and try to agree on search terms and other steps.
Judge Jesse M. Furman entered the order and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the letter-motion. The order addressed the scope of discovery and did not decide the underlying discrimination claims.
The detailed version
- Mitchem, Jr. v. New York University · No. 1:23-cv-07320
- Katharine Parker
- Aug. 26, 2024
Background
This employment-discrimination case alleges race discrimination, a hostile work environment, and pay inequity. Emery Mitchem, Jr. sought discovery—information exchanged before trial—from New York University concerning complaints against Stuart Robinson, described in the letter as NYU’s former Director of Athletics and Mitchem’s boss.
Mitchem’s counsel said NYU had agreed to produce complaints of race discrimination but was withholding complaints involving other forms of discrimination and harassment. The request was made in response to Document Request No. 17. Mitchem argued that the broader records were relevant to his hostile-work-environment claim, to NYU’s defenses, and to a possible punitive-damages award. The letter also described allegations that Robinson faced multiple complaints and that NYU later fired him after an Office of Equal Opportunity investigation found that he had created a hostile work environment for Mitchem and other Black employees. Those matters were presented in the plaintiff’s letter, not decided as findings in this discovery order.
Court’s ruling
The court stated that Mitchem’s letter-motion was “largely DENIED,” substantially for the reasons given in NYU’s response. The court nevertheless ordered NYU to produce all documents concerning complaints that were “conceivably related” to race discrimination or harassment based on race, even when the complaints were not complaints of race discrimination “per se.”
The court also directed the parties to meet and confer—that is, to discuss the issue and try to reach agreement—about appropriate search terms and other next steps consistent with the order. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 46. The order resolved a discovery dispute; it did not rule on whether Mitchem proved his discrimination claims or whether NYU was liable.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.