Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 3, 2025

Sabic-El-Rayess v. Teachers College

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:24-cv-02891
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In Sabic-El-Rayess v. Teachers College, Judge Furman granted access to psychological-test materials used by the College’s expert, subject to the existing protective order.

Who this affects

Dr. Amra Sabic-El-Rayess may obtain the raw data and test materials used by Teachers College’s emotional-distress expert, Dr. Jacqueline Bashkoff, subject to the existing protective order. Teachers College and its expert are affected by the production requirement.

What happened

In Sabic-El-Rayess v. Teachers College, Columbia University, Dr. Amra Sabic-El-Rayess asked the court to require the College to produce the raw data and test materials used by its emotional-distress expert, Dr. Jacqueline Bashkoff.

Bashkoff used the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 to evaluate Sabic-El-Rayess and relied on the results in her expert report. The College had produced Sabic-El-Rayess’s answer sheet and scores but withheld the test questions, citing trade-secret and copyright concerns. The College said it did not oppose the request but that the expert would not provide the materials without a court order.

Judge Jesse Furman granted the application. The materials are to be produced under the existing protective order; if the parties believe the court’s endorsement is insufficient, they must confer and submit an agreed proposed order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Sabic-El-Rayess v. Teachers College · No. 1:24-cv-02891
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Nov. 3, 2025

Background

Dr. Amra Sabic-El-Rayess moved to compel Teachers College, Columbia University, to produce the complete raw data and test materials relied on by the College’s emotional-distress expert, Dr. Jacqueline Bashkoff. The request included the questions from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2), which Bashkoff administered to Sabic-El-Rayess during a psychological evaluation.

The College served Bashkoff’s expert report, which interpreted and relied on the MMPI-2 results. It produced Sabic-El-Rayess’s answer sheet and scores but did not produce the questions. The College explained that the materials were trade secret and copyrighted. The parties’ existing protective order was entered on March 7, 2025.

Arguments in the Application

The application argued that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) requires a testifying expert to disclose the facts or data considered in forming an opinion. It also argued that the test materials were necessary to evaluate the reliability of Bashkoff’s conclusions under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The application relied on decisions ordering disclosure of psychological-test materials subject to protective orders and argued that a court order would address any ethical concerns about releasing the materials.

The opinion text states that the College did not oppose the application, although Bashkoff would not produce the requested materials without a court order.

Ruling

Judge Jesse Furman endorsed the application with the notation, “Application GRANTED.” The endorsement directs that, if either party concludes that it is insufficient, the plaintiff must confer with the defendant and the parties must submit a proposed agreed-upon order for the court to sign. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF Nos. 144 and 145.

The text does not separately state the precise production deadline or list each document beyond the application’s request for the complete raw data and test materials, including the MMPI-2 questions. The ruling is a discovery order concerning materials used by a testifying expert, not a decision on the ultimate claims in the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.