Solomon v. Fordham University
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:18-cv-04615
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
Solomon v. Fordham University: Judge Ramos denied Solomon’s motion to reconsider a discovery order allowing Fordham to redact certain names.
Esther Solomon and Fordham University, particularly concerning the discovery materials containing the names of Solomon’s peer reviewers and alleged comparator professors.
What happened
In Solomon v. Fordham University, Esther Solomon, representing herself, challenged Fordham’s redaction of the names of peer reviewers and alleged comparator professors in discovery materials. Her underlying case includes claims involving employment discrimination and retaliation, but this opinion addresses discovery only.
Solomon asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision granting Fordham a protective order for those redactions. She argued that the earlier protective order did not permit redactions, that Fordham had violated it, that the names were important to her case, and that the Second Circuit’s earlier decision had resolved the issue.
Judge Edgardo Ramos denied reconsideration. He ruled that Solomon had not identified new evidence, controlling law, or a clear error; that some arguments were raised too late; and that the Second Circuit had not decided whether the redactions were proper.
The detailed version
- Solomon v. Fordham University · No. 1:18-cv-04615
- Edgardo Ramos
- Oct. 2, 2024
Background
Esther Solomon, proceeding without a lawyer, brought federal and New York claims against Fordham University. The opinion describes claims alleging unequal pay, discrimination based on gender, age, and religion, retaliation, defamation, breach of contract, and other alleged misconduct. After an earlier appeal, the case returned to the district court for further proceedings and discovery.
In February 2019, the parties entered a protective order governing confidential discovery materials. The court later considered disputes about Fordham’s redaction of the names of Solomon’s peer reviewers and alleged comparator professors. On July 2, 2024, the court denied Solomon’s motion to compel concerning those names and granted Fordham’s request for a protective order permitting the redactions. The court also denied Fordham’s motion to compel Solomon to conduct additional document searches.
Motion for Reconsideration
Solomon moved for reconsideration of the July 2 order concerning the redactions. She argued that the earlier protective order did not address or permit redactions, that Fordham had violated the order, and that the names were relevant and necessary to litigate her claims. She also argued that the Second Circuit’s prior decision had implicitly resolved the redaction issue.
The court treated the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which governs reconsideration of orders in this setting. It did so even though Solomon had cited Rule 59(e), because no trial had occurred and the court applied the more lenient standards used when evaluating filings by people who represent themselves.
Court’s Analysis
The court rejected Solomon’s argument that the July 2 order improperly changed the earlier protective order. It explained that the earlier order did not address redactions, so the later protective order was a new order covering the names of peer reviewers and alleged comparator professors.
The court also declined to consider several arguments that Solomon had not made in her original briefing, including allegations that Fordham violated the earlier protective order and improperly used certain names. The court stated that a reconsideration motion cannot be used to present new facts, issues, or arguments.
Regarding the relevance of the names, the court concluded that Solomon had not provided new evidence or controlling law showing that the names were necessary to litigate her claims. It noted that Fordham had already provided biographical information about the alleged comparator professors, including their gender, year of birth, and title. The court had previously found that Solomon had not adequately shown why the names were relevant, while Fordham had shown good cause for protecting the employees’ privacy and the sensitive peer-review process.
Finally, the court ruled that the Second Circuit’s earlier decision did not resolve the redaction question. A footnote in that decision and a question asked during oral argument did not decide whether Fordham’s redactions were proper. Therefore, the law-of-the-case doctrine did not require reconsideration.
Disposition
The court denied Solomon’s motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion. The opinion does not resolve the underlying employment and other claims.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.