Sabic-El-Rayess v. Teachers College, Columbia University
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-02891
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Sabic-El-Rayess v. Teachers College, Judge Furman granted in part and denied in part a discovery motion, limiting comparator information and deposition topics.
The ruling limits the discovery Amra Sabic-El-Rayess may obtain from Teachers College, Columbia University, while allowing specified comparator and evaluation-criteria information and permitting narrower requests for factual information about affirmative defenses.
What happened
In Sabic-El-Rayess v. Teachers College, Amra Sabic-El-Rayess asked the court to require Teachers College, Columbia University, to provide additional discovery in her case. She sought information about other employees, hiring and promotion decisions, and topics for a deposition of the college.
The court allowed discovery about the criteria used for relevant tenure-track and tenured positions, and about Dr. Ghosh and Dr. Erickson, who may have been hired or promoted in the same departments and at nearly the same time. It barred discovery about several other comparators because of differences in department, timing, or the age of the information. The court also rejected discovery aimed at showing that positions were not publicly posted or that Sabic-El-Rayess reasonably believed she was discriminated against.
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted in part and denied in part the motion to compel. He also denied the request to require witnesses to testify about Teachers College’s legal defenses and attorneys’ impressions, while allowing Sabic-El-Rayess to revise those requests to seek factual information without requiring disclosure of the college’s legal theories.
The detailed version
- Sabic-El-Rayess v. Teachers College, Columbia University · No. 1:24-cv-02891
- Jesse Furman
- May 22, 2025
Background
Amra Sabic-El-Rayess filed a letter motion asking the court to compel Teachers College, Columbia University (which the opinion calls “TC”), to produce discovery. The motion concerned comparator information, the criteria TC used to evaluate tenure-track and tenured candidates, and topics for a deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). That rule allows a party to depose an organization through witnesses designated to testify about specified subjects.
Comparator and hiring information
The court rejected Sabic-El-Rayess’s argument that she needed detailed information about TC’s hires to determine whether certain tenure-track and tenured positions were not posted or to show that she had an objectively reasonable subjective belief that she was discriminated against. The court concluded that she could obtain that information without examining detailed information about TC’s particular hires. It relied on the rule that discovery may be limited when it is unreasonably cumulative or can be obtained from a more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive source.
The court held that Sabic-El-Rayess could seek information about the criteria TC applied to tenure-track and tenure candidates when those criteria related to positions for which she applied and was rejected. It also permitted discovery about comparators who may have been hired or promoted within the preceding ten years, in the same departments where she was seeking tenure-track positions, and at nearly the same time. The opinion identified Dr. Ghosh and Dr. Erickson as falling within that permitted category. The court stated that the comparison was allowed even though Sabic-El-Rayess pursued a “Target of Opportunity” route rather than applying for “Permission to Recruit” positions.
The court barred discovery about three categories of comparators: people hired or promoted into departments at times different from when Sabic-El-Rayess worked in those departments, including Dr. Limerick, Dr. Koch, and Dr. Mendenhall; people hired or promoted at times when she had not alleged that she was seeking tenure or tenure-track positions, including Dr. Matsudaira; and people hired or promoted more than ten years earlier, including Dr. Pizmony-Levy and Dr. Drezner. The same restrictions applied to the subjects listed in her Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice.
Affirmative defenses and disposition
The court agreed with TC that the Rule 30(b)(6) notice improperly sought privileged legal defenses and attorneys’ impressions. It therefore denied Sabic-El-Rayess’s request to compel TC to designate witnesses to testify about its affirmative defenses. The denial was without prejudice to Sabic-El-Rayess recasting the requests to seek information about facts, without requiring TC to disclose how those facts supported its legal theories.
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted in part and denied in part the motion to compel and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 74.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.