Adilia Hormigo, M.D., Ph.D. v. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai et al.
- Ho
- 1:24-cv-04757
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hormigo v. Icahn School of Medicine, Judge Ho granted in part and denied in part Hormigo’s motion to compel discovery.
Adilia Hormigo and the defendants are affected by the order’s limits on document production. Defendants must produce the communications between Drs. Vickrey and Bhardwaj covered by the second request and the complaint materials within the portions of the first request that the court allowed; other parts of the first request were denied, including one portion without prejudice.
What happened
Adilia Hormigo asked the court to order Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the other defendants to produce documents in a dispute about discovery in her case. The first request concerned age- or gender-discrimination and retaliation complaints from four departments from January 1, 2017, to the present. The second sought communications between Drs. Barbara Vickrey and Nina Bhardwaj about Hormigo or the Trial from January 1, 2020, to the present.
The court partly rejected and partly allowed the first request. It treated the request for Neurology Department complaints and complaints involving several named individuals as denied as moot because defendants offered to produce those materials. It denied the request for complaints from other departments as disproportionate, denied the request concerning other individuals without prejudice, and granted the requested time period through the present. The court granted the second request in full, finding those communications central to Hormigo’s allegations and the timeframe reasonable.
Judge Dale E. Ho granted in part and denied in part Hormigo’s motion to compel under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order concerned only the scope of document production and did not decide the underlying allegations.
The detailed version
- Adilia Hormigo, M.D., Ph.D. v. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai et al. · No. 1:24-cv-04757
- Ho
- Sept. 19, 2025
Background
The court held a conference on September 18, 2025, concerning Plaintiff Adilia Hormigo’s motion to compel document production under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons stated on the record, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion.
First document request
Hormigo sought complaints of age discrimination, gender discrimination, and/or retaliation from the Neurology, Neuro-Surgery, Medicine, and Tisch Cancer Center departments for January 1, 2017, through the present.
The court ruled as follows:
- Defendants had offered to produce complaints from the Neurology Department and complaints involving Dr. Barbara Vickrey, Dr. Joshua Bederson, Dr. Nina Bhardwaj, Dr. Costas Hadjipanyis, and Dr. Eric Nestler, to the extent those individuals were not considered part of the Neurology Department. The court therefore denied as moot the request concerning the Neurology Department and those individuals. - The court denied the request for similar materials from other departments because it was disproportionate to the needs of the case. The court noted that Hormigo’s primary appointment was limited to the Neurology Department. - The court denied without prejudice the request concerning other individuals. It stated that discovery concerning individuals alleged to have participated in the discriminatory acts underlying Hormigo’s claims was likely appropriate and proportional. - The court granted the request for the specified timeframe through the present, finding that period appropriate because Hormigo alleged that the conduct underlying her claims remained ongoing.
Second document request
Hormigo sought all documents concerning communications between Drs. Barbara Vickrey and Nina Bhardwaj about Hormigo and/or the Trial from January 1, 2020, through the present. The court granted this part of the motion. It found that the documents went to the heart of Hormigo’s allegations and that the requested timeframe was appropriate and not disproportionate to the needs of the case.
Disposition
The court’s order granted in part and denied in part the motion to compel. It addressed discovery requests and did not resolve the merits of Hormigo’s underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.