Liederbach v. NYU Langone Hospitals
- Vargas
- 1:24-cv-00742
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Liederbach v. NYU Langone Hospitals, Judge Vargas set briefing on a phone search and possible mental-health examination, and adjourned the conference.
Marijeanne Liederbach and the defendants, NYU Langone Hospitals, Gail Chorney, and Jose Labarca III, as well as the witness whose cell phone may be searched.
What happened
In Liederbach v. NYU Langone Hospitals, the court addressed ongoing discovery disputes. The parties may submit letter briefs about a forensic search of a witness’s cell phone, including who should pay any related costs.
The defendants must file a letter motion seeking a mental-health examination of Liederbach, and Liederbach must respond. The court noted that the parties had previously said they agreed about the examination and that the claim for extraordinary emotional-distress damages appeared to support a possible examination, but Rule 35 requires a motion showing good cause and notice.
Judge Jeannette A. Vargas also directed Liederbach’s response to address whether special circumstances would justify having counsel present during the examination. The court adjourned the August 4, 2025 conference without setting a new date and did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Liederbach v. NYU Langone Hospitals · No. 1:24-cv-00742
- Vargas
- July 2, 2025
Background
The court received the parties’ joint status letter concerning discovery disputes. One dispute involved a forensic search of a witness’s cell phone. Another involved the defendants’ request for an independent mental-health examination of Plaintiff Marijeanne Liederbach under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35.
The parties had previously represented that they had reached an agreement concerning Liederbach’s examination. The court stated that Liederbach’s current position was troubling. It also stated that Liederbach appeared able to show good cause for a mental-health examination because she seeks damages for extraordinary emotional distress.
Court’s Directions
The court permitted the parties to submit letter briefs concerning the forensic cell-phone search, including any proposed shifting of costs. Liederbach was directed to submit her letter brief concerning her motion to compel by July 8, 2025. The defendants were directed to submit their opposition by July 11, 2025. No reply was permitted.
The defendants were directed to submit a letter motion seeking to compel Liederbach’s mental-health examination by July 8, 2025. Liederbach was directed to respond by July 11, 2025, and no reply was permitted.
The court explained that, in federal court, counsel generally may not attend such an examination unless special circumstances are shown. Liederbach’s opposition papers therefore had to address whether special factors justified counsel’s presence at any examination.
Disposition and Effect
The order set briefing schedules and did not grant or deny the motion to compel. It adjourned the conference scheduled for August 4, 2025, without setting a new date. The order addressed discovery procedures rather than the merits of Liederbach’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.