Sabic-El-Rayess v. Coll.

Background

The plaintiff, Dr. Amra Sabic-El-Rayess, submitted a response to Teachers College, Columbia University’s letter motion to strike two expert reports by Dr. Nathan Alleman. The reports were dated September 24 and September 26, 2025. The plaintiff did not oppose striking the September 24 report but argued that the September 26 supplemental report should remain the operative report.

The plaintiff said the parties had agreed to expert-report deadlines and that the defendant later produced five documents relevant to Dr. Alleman’s analysis. After reviewing those documents, Dr. Alleman prepared the September 24 supplemental report. Following the defendant’s objection that some revisions exceeded the scope of the new documents, Dr. Alleman revised the report again and served the September 26 supplemental report. The court had also extended the expert-discovery deadline on the parties’ joint request, and the rebuttal report deadline for Dr. Alleman was October 29, 2025.

Parties’ Positions and Legal Standard

The plaintiff argued that the substantive revisions in the September 26 report concerned the newly produced documents, including information about other professors’ qualifications, hiring or tenure reviews, and publication records. The plaintiff also argued that the report added no new opinions, was disclosed well before the deadline for pretrial disclosures, and did not prejudice the defendant because the defendant had time to respond and Dr. Alleman’s deposition was scheduled for October 24.

The opinion explained that federal civil-procedure rules require an expert’s written report to include the expert’s opinions, the reasons for them, and the facts or data considered. Those rules also require timely supplementation when an expert disclosure becomes materially incomplete or incorrect.

Ruling

Judge Furman ruled that the defendant’s letter motion to strike, ECF Nos. 127 and 128, was GRANTED as unopposed with respect to Dr. Alleman’s September 24, 2025 report and DENIED as to Dr. Alleman’s September 26, 2025 report. The court agreed that the September 26 changes were limited to responding to the additional discovery. It also concluded that the defendant’s claimed prejudice was negated by the extension of the expert-discovery deadline, which had been based on the timing of the updated report.

The court further ruled that the parties’ motions to seal were GRANTED, finding that the requests were narrowly tailored to reasons sufficient to overcome the usual presumption favoring public access to judicial documents. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF Nos. 127 and 128.