Dr. Stella Safo, et al. v. Dr. Prabhjot Singh, et al.

Background

Between April and May 2025, the plaintiffs filed several letter motions and responses about discovery disputes. The parties had jointly extended fact discovery to February 28, 2025, and the plaintiffs filed the motions addressed here after that deadline. After ordering the parties to meet and confer, the court heard oral argument on October 6, 2025.

Plaintiffs’ first motion to compel, Dkt. No. 176

The court declined to decide whether most of the requests were untimely because it found that the requests also failed on their merits.

The plaintiffs sought documents concerning former Arnhold Institute for Global Health Chief Operating Officer Kirsten Knaup, including documents related to a 2018 investigation and her departure. The plaintiffs argued that the documents could show discriminatory treatment and affect defendants’ credibility. The court found the 2018 investigation occurred years after the alleged discrimination and harassment and was not relevant to the claims. It therefore denied the requests identified as 1.b and 1.c.

The plaintiffs also sought Knaup’s communications with Dr. Irwin Redlener about an earlier sexual-harassment complaint involving another person. The court found the information minimally relevant but concluded that the relevance was outweighed by the burden of searching communications about an unsubstantiated rumor that Knaup had heard years earlier. The court denied request 1.e as disproportionate to the needs of the case.

The plaintiffs sought communications between Knaup and defendants Bruno Silva and Prabhjot Singh. Because defendants represented that Knaup was not aware of responsive documents after a reasonable and diligent search, the court denied requests 1.f and 1.g.

The plaintiffs also sought a draft report by an Oversight Committee concerning the 2018 investigation. Defendants asserted attorney-client and work-product privilege, but the court did not reach that issue. Instead, it found the request untimely because the plaintiffs had waited ten months after a deposition identifying the report’s main author. The court therefore denied request 2.a based on untimeliness.

Plaintiffs’ second motion to compel, Dkt. No. 179

The plaintiffs sought communications between defendants and Dr. Kevin Starr. Because defendants agreed to re-review Dr. Singh’s personal email for relevant communications with Starr, the court denied that request as moot.

The plaintiffs sought all communications involving Starr, John Arnhold, or Jody Arnhold concerning Singh, the Arnhold Institute, donations, or the 2018 investigation. The court found that the investigation was not relevant and that the request for “all” communications was too broad in scope and time period. The court denied the request.

The plaintiffs sought Dr. Singh’s employment file, including what they called a “letter of reproach.” Defendants represented that they had produced all personnel-related documents found through a good-faith, diligent search and had not located such a letter. The court denied the request as moot.

The plaintiffs sought to compel depositions of John and Jody Arnhold concerning their alleged influence over the 2018 investigation. The court declined to decide the timeliness issue but found the proposed discovery irrelevant because it concerned the 2018 investigation. It denied the motion to compel those depositions.

The court declined to rule at that time on the request to compel Sandeep Kishore’s deposition and stated that it would address that request in a separate administrative matter, Case No. 25-mc-154.

Motion for reargument, Dkt. No. 182

The plaintiffs asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of a motion concerning the 2018 investigation. The court explained that the applicable local rule requires a reconsideration or reargument request within 14 days after the challenged order. The plaintiffs filed their request about 15 months after the earlier ruling, so the court found it untimely.

The court also held that the request failed on the merits. It found that the plaintiffs’ claimed new evidence either predated the earlier ruling or had been available before the close of fact discovery. The court characterized the motion as an attempt to relitigate old issues and denied the motion for reargument. The opinion refers to this motion as the plaintiffs’ motion but, in its final ruling, states that it is denying “Defendants’ motion for reargument.”

Disposition and classification

The order is a discovery and reconsideration ruling. It does not decide the parties’ underlying discrimination or harassment claims. The discovery requests were denied, several as moot, the Kishore deposition request was deferred to another matter, and the reargument motion was denied. The order is therefore classified as a procedural order.