Ahmad v. New York University

Background

Ahmad asked the court to compel defendants to produce unredacted versions of Exhibits 98–101 and 103–107. According to Ahmad’s filing, the documents concerned defendants’ decisions allowing clinical employees to work from home as an accommodation. The documents redacted the names and email addresses of defendants’ employees.

Ahmad argued that the redactions were improper because the documents had been found relevant, defendants had not obtained court permission for the redactions, and the information would be useful to the jury. Ahmad’s filing stated that he consented to redactions required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 and to redacting the name of the disabled employee who made the accommodation request.

Court’s reasoning

The court noted that defendants had produced the documents to Ahmad two years earlier with redactions under a confidentiality order, identified as Docket 55. The court found that Ahmad did not object to the redactions until shortly before trial, after discovery had closed and after motions about the admission of evidence had already been made and decided.

The court stated that, even if Ahmad’s request were procedurally proper and his objections had not been waived, the redactions were narrowly tailored to protect confidential medical and employment information belonging to nonparties. The court further found that the usefulness of the nonparties’ identities as evidence was significantly outweighed by the risks of unfair prejudice, confusion, and unnecessary delay.

Disposition

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied the request to compel production of the unredacted documents. The opinion does not state any additional disposition of the case.