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 denied Liederbach’s request to force more details about her psychological examination.
Liederbach and the defendants involved in the planned psychological examination, including NYU Langone Hospitals.
What happened
In Liederbach v. NYU Langone Hospitals, Liederbach asked the court to enforce an earlier order and require the defendants to identify every test, assessment, and procedure planned for her independent psychological examination.
The defendants said they had explained that the examination would address Liederbach’s mental condition and its relationship to her employment, cancer diagnosis, termination, and claimed injuries. They also disclosed that it would include a written personality questionnaire and oral questioning, but did not identify the questionnaire by name.
Judge Jeannette A. Vargas ruled that the defendants had sufficiently described the examination’s scope and manner, and that Rule 35 did not require disclosure of the specific personality inventory. The court denied Liederbach’s motion to compel.
The detailed version
- Liederbach v. NYU Langone Hospitals · No. 1:24-cv-00742
- Vargas
- Aug. 15, 2025
Background
Liederbach asked the court to enforce its July 16, 2025 order and compel the defendants to provide a list of all proposed tests, assessments, and procedures for her independent medical examination. Specifically, she sought the names of the tests so that she could raise objections.
The defendants responded that they had emailed Liederbach on July 24, 2025, explaining that the examination would be a face-to-face psychological evaluation. They said it would concern her overall mental condition and, more specifically, her mental state as related to her employment at NYU Langone, her cancer diagnosis, the termination of her employment, and the effects of those events on her mental state, including claimed injuries or damages. They also disclosed that the examination would include a written personality inventory and oral questioning.
The defendants described the questionnaire as a recognized personality inventory routinely used in psychological testing. They argued that requiring their expert to identify the specific test in advance could undermine the examination’s integrity, and they supported that position with an American Psychological Association resolution concerning psychological-test security and validity.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that its earlier order, issued under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, required information about the examination’s scope and manner. The court found that the defendants had provided enough information about the nature of the testing for Liederbach to raise any appropriate objections.
The court further held that Rule 35 did not entitle Liederbach to the name of the specific personality inventory. In reaching that conclusion, it relied on Robinson v. De Niro, 600 F. Supp. 3d 286 (S.D.N.Y. 2022), and Ragge v. MCA/Universal Studios, 165 F.R.D. 605 (C.D. Cal. 1995).
Disposition
Judge Jeannette A. Vargas denied Liederbach’s motion to compel. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 67. The opinion does not state that the court imposed any additional conditions on the examination.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.