Castillo v. Albert Einstein College of Medicine Inc
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:24-cv-00984
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Castillo v. Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Judge Engelmayer ordered defendants to respond to Castillo’s discovery letter by September 17, 2025.
The order affected Castillo, the putative class represented by the plaintiff’s counsel, and the defendants, who were given until September 17, 2025, to respond to the plaintiff’s discovery letter.
What happened
In Castillo et al. v. Albert Einstein College of Medicine Inc, et al., the plaintiff asked the court to require defendants to identify systems that may contain information relevant to the putative class. The plaintiff also asked for permission to file a formal motion to compel if the court did not order that relief immediately.
The plaintiff argued that defendants had not followed an earlier court directive requiring them to explain how they determined which systems might contain responsive information. According to the plaintiff, defendants relied on general input from information-technology personnel and had not identified all systems used or accessible to putative class members. These statements describe the plaintiff’s arguments; the court did not decide whether they were correct.
Judge Engelmayer acknowledged receipt of the plaintiff’s letter and directed that any response from defendants be filed by September 17, 2025. The order did not decide the request to compel discovery or the alternative request for permission to file a motion.
The detailed version
- Castillo v. Albert Einstein College of Medicine Inc · No. 1:24-cv-00984
- Paul Engelmayer
- Sept. 15, 2025
What the plaintiff requested
The plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter asking the court to require defendants to identify the systems within their possession, custody, or control that were used or accessible to putative class members and might contain responsive discovery. In the alternative, the plaintiff asked for permission to file a formal motion to compel. A motion to compel asks the court to require a party to provide discovery that the requesting party says has not been properly provided.
Plaintiff’s position
The plaintiff asserted that defendants had not complied with earlier court directives. According to the letter, the court had directed defendants to explain in detail how they determined that no additional Montefiore systems contained responsive discovery. The plaintiff contended that defendants instead consulted information-technology personnel and made an “educated determination” about which systems were most likely to have been used by putative class members.
The plaintiff argued that defendants should be able to identify the systems their employees were expected or required to use, and that defendants should not shift that responsibility to the plaintiff. The letter requested that defendants identify the relevant systems, explain specifically how they were identified, and undertake a process beyond consulting the information-technology department.
Court’s action
The court stated that it had received the plaintiff’s letter. Under the court’s individual rules, it directed that defendants’ response, if any, was due September 17, 2025. The order did not grant or deny the request to compel discovery, and it did not grant or deny permission to file a motion to compel.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.