Odermatt v. The Mount Sinai Hospital

Background

Emily Odermatt, proceeding without a lawyer, brought disability-discrimination claims against The Mount Sinai Hospital, Mount Sinai Health System, Inc., and Mount Sinai Hospitals Group, Inc. The opinion addresses only Odermatt’s motion to reconsider several orders related to discovery misconduct and a deposition recording.

Defendants had asked the court to impose remedies, including sanctions, based in part on their assertion that Odermatt recorded her deposition without giving prior notice and later testified that she had not taped it. They also asked the court to require her to obtain permission before filing additional letter-motions and to follow the applicable rules.

On June 27, 2025, the court denied Defendants’ motion for sanctions and declined to require advance permission for Odermatt’s letter-motions. The court nevertheless instructed Odermatt not to publish the unnoticed recording, use it in future court filings, or otherwise offer it as evidence. The court later clarified that it had not made a final factual finding about whether Odermatt committed perjury and that the restriction applied to any audio or video recordings she may have made of the deposition.

Arguments and Analysis

Odermatt sought reconsideration of the June 27, July 2, and July 23 orders. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only when the court overlooked controlling decisions or facts that could reasonably change its conclusion.

Odermatt argued that the written deposition transcript was wrong and that continuing to restrict her recording would cause a serious injustice. The court rejected that argument. It held that making the deposition recording without prior notice to opposing counsel violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b). As a result, prohibiting Odermatt from using the unnoticed recording was an appropriate sanction, regardless of whether she committed perjury.

The court said that any alleged transcript errors should have been addressed through deposition errata—written corrections to a deposition transcript—filed within 30 days under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e).

Odermatt also argued that Defendants’ sanctions motion was untimely because they allegedly knew earlier that she had recorded the deposition. The court found that an earlier Defendants’ letter did not show such knowledge. Instead, the court relied on Defendants’ representation that they learned about the recording on May 30, 2025, when Odermatt emailed defense counsel an hour-long recording. Because Defendants filed their sanctions motion less than a week later, the court found it timely.

Disposition

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied Odermatt’s motion for reconsideration. The opinion leaves in place the restriction against publishing, filing, or offering the unnoticed deposition recording as evidence. It also leaves intact the court’s clarification that the earlier order did not make a final factual determination about perjury.