McInnis v. City of New York

Background

Jennifer McInnis and her three minor children sued the City of New York, child-services defendants, and employees of St. Barnabas Hospital, alleging violations of rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. By the time of this order, the City and one child-services defendant had settled, and the remaining hospital defendants were Dr. Leah Bralow and Dr. Rutmi Goradia. Nyasha Beepot, another hospital defendant, had been voluntarily dismissed.

The plaintiffs moved for sanctions under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They argued that the hospital defendants had failed to timely update their initial disclosures about possible insurance coverage and had failed to comply with an order requiring production of documents concerning that coverage.

Disclosure dispute

The hospital defendants’ September 6, 2024 disclosures stated that Bralow participated in a hospital physician malpractice program that provided indemnification up to $1 million, and that Goradia and Beepot were covered under hospital self-insurance funds. On April 11, 2025, their lawyer stated that the defendants were not insured. On May 12, 2025—after discovery had closed and eight months after the initial disclosures—the defendants amended their disclosures to state that there were no applicable insurance agreements.

The court held that the defendants violated Rule 26(e), which requires a party to promptly correct a materially incomplete or incorrect disclosure. The court found the delay inappropriate, but declined to award fees or costs for the period between April 2 and May 12, 2025. It reasoned that the plaintiffs had not shown prejudice, had not described follow-up efforts during much of that period, and continued litigating after learning the defendants’ coverage position.

Violation of the discovery order

At a May 13, 2025 conference, the court ordered the hospital defendants to obtain and provide the relevant insurance policies by the next business day. The defendants instead sent a letter stating that there were no relevant policies and later maintained that no applicable insurance existed. The documents were eventually produced after another court conference and order.

The court rejected the argument that the defendants complied merely by stating that no relevant policies existed. Because the original disclosures identified possible coverage, the defendants were required to produce documents reflecting that coverage so the plaintiffs could evaluate the assertion that there was no coverage. The court therefore found that the hospital defendants and their lawyer violated the discovery order.

Ruling

Under Rule 37(b)(2)(C), a court generally must award reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by a failure to obey a discovery order unless the failure was substantially justified or an award would otherwise be unjust. The court found that the hospital defendants had not shown substantial justification or other circumstances making an award unjust.

Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky therefore granted the plaintiffs’ sanctions motion in part. The hospital defendants and their counsel must pay the plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs connected with the sanctions motion. The amount will be determined after the plaintiffs submit a fee application and the hospital defendants submit any objections. The motion was otherwise denied. The plaintiffs’ fee application was due August 22, 2025, and any objections were due September 5, 2025.