Dr. Stella Safo v. Dr. Prabhjot Singh

Background

Between January and May 2025, the parties filed six letter motions and six responses concerning discovery. The order addressed each dispute, including requests to compel testimony or documents, requests for protective orders limiting discovery, requests for a conference about reconsideration of an earlier discovery order, and motions to seal filings.

Deposition of Dr. Ann Olivarius

Defendants moved to compel the deposition of Dr. Ann Olivarius, who was Plaintiffs’ attorney but had also been involved in events before becoming counsel. The court applied four factors for deciding whether opposing counsel may be deposed: the need for the deposition, the lawyer’s role in the events and discovery, the risk of encountering privileged information, and the amount of discovery already completed.

The court found that the first three factors supported the deposition and that the fourth was neutral. It therefore granted Defendants’ motion to compel the production of Dr. Olivarius for a deposition. Defendants may question her about relevant nonprivileged events, but may not ask about her current representation of Plaintiffs or her current mental impressions.

Protective order concerning organizational testimony

The court set the relevant discovery period at April 3, 2014, through July 3, 2019. It rejected Plaintiffs’ request to add the 2013 faculty-promotion denials of Dr. Holly Atkinson and Dr. Natasha Anandaraja, finding those matters irrelevant and disproportionate to the needs of the case.

For Topic One, which concerned policies and practices at the Arnhold Institute for Global Health, the court granted the motion for a protective order in part and denied it in part. The topic may include the parties’ agreed list plus policies concerning changes to titles, position descriptions, job duties, and faculty ranks, and office-seating arrangements. Testimony about office-seating arrangements may address only whether such policies existed, not how they were applied to individuals.

For Topic Two, requests for testimony outside the April 3, 2014–July 3, 2019 period were denied. The parties’ agreement to remove Humale Khan from the witness list made Defendants’ motion concerning him denied as moot. Regarding Dr. Abdulrahman El-Sayed, the motion was granted in part and denied in part: Plaintiffs may ask about recruitment, hiring, and compensation policies to the extent he had already been hired as an incoming employee, but not about most applications of AIGH policies to a nonemployee.

Regarding Dr. Holly Atkinson, Dr. Natasha Anandaraja, and Mary Caliendo, the motion was granted to the extent Plaintiffs sought testimony about the 2013 faculty-promotion denials and was otherwise denied as to how AIGH policies or procedures may have been applied to them from 2014 through 2019. The motion concerning Dr. James Faghmous and Dr. Sandeep Kishore was denied because Plaintiffs identified them as comparators for Dr. Stella Safo. Defendants did not object to testimony concerning Dr. Stella Safo, Dr. Emilie Bruzelius, Amanda Misiti, Geraldine Llames, or Dr. Prabhjot Singh.

The court granted the protective order concerning Topics Five and Six because requiring a representative to testify about all the requested subjects would be overly burdensome. Defendants must nevertheless provide a list of employees who worked at AIGH during the relevant period, including their titles, applicable faculty ranks, and supervisors. The motion concerning Topic Seven was denied as moot because the parties had agreed to discuss a different wording, and the newly proposed question was not ready for court intervention.

Documents and privilege disputes

Defendants moved to compel production of redacted text messages, witness statements, and communications involving a person who was not represented by counsel. The court granted the motion to compel the seven redacted pages of WhatsApp messages. It held that the common-interest protection did not apply because one participant, Ms. Rahona, had signed a general release waiving legal claims against Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai before the messages were exchanged. The court also denied as unripe Defendants’ additional request for other statements and communications not specifically identified.

The court found that Ms. Rahona’s statement and Mr. Escosia’s affidavit were protected attorney work product because they were prepared or obtained for the litigation. The court could not determine from the submitted material whether Dr. James Faghmous’s document was prepared for counsel in anticipation of litigation, so Plaintiffs were ordered to submit the complete statement for private court review by August 8, 2025. The court reserved its decision on whether Plaintiffs waived protection by asserting it late or failing to include the statements in a privilege log, and ordered Plaintiffs to provide their initial discovery responses and privilege log by that date.

For the emails involving Elizabeth Stern, the court granted Defendants’ motion to compel two documents and ordered Plaintiffs to produce unredacted copies. The court denied the motion as to a third document, Bates-stamped Atkinson, et al._000339, finding that the forwarded email thread appeared to have been sent to Plaintiffs’ counsel at counsel’s request and was therefore protected work product.

Further proceedings and sealing

The court granted Plaintiffs’ request for a conference but scheduled in-person oral argument on reconsideration of the court’s January 3, 2024 order rather than the requested informal conference. That proceeding was set for September 15, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. The parties were ordered to meet and confer about the remaining discovery disputes and file a joint status letter by September 2, 2025.

The court granted one motion to seal because it applied the appropriate legal standard and analysis. All other motions to seal were denied without prejudice because citing the parties’ confidentiality order alone was not enough to justify sealing.

Disposition

The order resolved discovery and confidentiality issues without deciding the underlying claims. Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis granted, denied, or partly granted the various motions as specified above, ordered additional production and court review, and scheduled further proceedings.