Abadi v. NYU Langone Health System

Background

Aaron Abadi, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York State discrimination statutes against NYU Langone Health System and several employees. He alleged that they discriminated against him by denying access to their facilities unless he wore a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The order addressed Abadi’s objections to two discovery orders issued by Magistrate Judge Gorenstein. Discovery had closed in November 2022. In January 2024, the parties entered a court-approved stipulation requiring Abadi to sit for a deposition and the defendants to answer several interrogatories.

First objection: use of deposition testimony

Abadi moved to prevent the defendants from using his deposition testimony at summary judgment or trial. He argued that the January 2024 stipulation made his deposition conditional on the defendants providing satisfactory answers to his interrogatories. Judge Gorenstein denied the motion because Abadi had not followed the required process of conferring with the defendants and holding a pre-motion conference before filing a discovery motion. Judge Gorenstein also concluded that the stipulation did not make the parties’ obligations dependent on each other.

The Court overruled Abadi’s first objection. It held that the motion was properly denied for failure to follow Judge Gorenstein’s individual rules. It also found no clear error in the interpretation of the stipulation. The stipulation required the parties to undertake limited additional discovery, but it did not say that failure to satisfy one discovery obligation would prevent use of the other party’s discovery. The Court further noted that the defendants had provided responses to the interrogatories, and that any claimed deficiencies should have been raised through a motion to compel more complete responses rather than a motion to exclude Abadi’s deposition.

Second objection: interrogatory responses and nonparty witnesses

Abadi initially challenged seven interrogatory responses, and Judge Gorenstein ordered the defendants to provide revised answers. After receiving those answers, Abadi expanded his challenge to sixteen interrogatories. He argued that five had not been answered, that the other eleven responses were deficient because attorneys had drafted them, and that the responses were evasive or contradicted documents. He also sought last-known addresses for five nonparty witnesses.

Judge Gorenstein denied the broader request as untimely and lacking merit. He concluded that Abadi waited more than a year after the interrogatories were served, and until the day he filed his summary-judgment motion, to raise the dispute. He also ruled that the revised responses were adequate, that attorney assistance in preparing interrogatory answers was not improper, and that interrogatories could not be served on nonparties. Because discovery had closed, he declined to reopen discovery for subpoenas to the nonparty witnesses.

Ruling

Judge Abrams overruled Abadi’s second objection as well. Applying the deferential standard for reviewing a magistrate judge’s nondispositive discovery ruling, the Court found no clear error or legal mistake in the timeliness ruling, the decision that attorney involvement in drafting responses was permissible, or the refusal to compel addresses for the nonparty witnesses.

The Court affirmed Judge Gorenstein’s rulings and overruled Abadi’s first and second objections. It directed the parties to submit a joint letter proposing a new deadline for summary-judgment motions within three days of the order. The opinion did not decide the merits of Abadi’s disability-discrimination claims.