Acosta v. The New York Times Company d/b/a The New York Times and Pamela Dryfoos

Background

The defendants moved to compel Ara Acosta to produce documents and information. They also sought health-record authorizations and authorizations allowing them to obtain employment records from Acosta’s other employers. The defendants said the employment information was needed to evaluate whether Acosta had reduced her claimed damages by obtaining other income after her employment with The New York Times. Acosta had already provided certain health-related and unemployment-insurance authorizations, and she largely opposed the remaining requests.

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, which permits discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The court emphasized that discovery can be broad but cannot be unlimited, unnecessarily sweeping, or excessively burdensome.

Rulings on document requests

The court denied the motion to compel as to Document Request No. 12. That request sought any and all documents concerning Acosta’s allegations that the defendants discriminated against her because of disabilities. The court found the request overbroad and insufficiently specific, while noting that the defendants could make a narrower request and renew the motion after conferring with Acosta.

The court denied the motion as to Document Request No. 15, which sought documents concerning any discrimination charge or complaint filed with any agency. The court accepted Acosta’s position that the request appeared to concern the charge already in the defendants’ possession, but allowed the defendants to renew the motion if follow-up did not clarify whether other filings existed.

The court granted the motion as to Document Request No. 17. Acosta had to provide documents supporting each category of damages claimed, including materials supporting her damages calculations and the nature and extent of claimed injuries, subject to any specific privilege or protection dispute.

The court granted the motion as to Document Request No. 18 only to the extent it sought mitigation-related proof of income from May 1, 2023, onward that Acosta had not already produced. If responsive materials were bank records, Acosta could redact information unrelated to her sources of income during that period.

The court denied the motion as to Document Request No. 19, which sought documents concerning every job Acosta had held or applied for from May 1, 2023, onward. The court found the request for all documents about job applications overbroad and unduly burdensome in light of the income information being ordered. The defendants could renew the request if another relevant reason emerged. The parties were also directed to discuss whether a job description for Acosta’s later employment would resolve the issue.

The court denied the motion as to Document Request Nos. 25 and 37. Those requests sought any and all messages exchanged with Pamela Dryfoos and any and all documents exchanged with Wendy Espe. The court found them overbroad but allowed the defendants to make narrower requests concerning relevant communications.

The court denied the motion as to Document Request Nos. 38 and 39. Those requests sought all documents concerning Acosta’s travel between May 1, 2023, and October 1, 2024, and all documents concerning marathons, half marathons, or races. The court found the requests overbroad, especially the race-related request, which had no time limit. The defendants could renew with narrower requests and a fuller explanation of relevance.

The court granted the motion as to Document Request Nos. 43 and 44. Acosta had to produce documents related to her allegations about the terms of her initial employment agreement and an alleged extension of that agreement, including allegations concerning dates, salaries, a position, and bonus eligibility.

The court granted the motion as to Document Request No. 50. Acosta had to produce documents concerning her allegation that Dryfoos admitted fabricating performance concerns. The court found that the request was sufficiently specific even though it referred to the wrong paragraph number because it had been served before Acosta amended her complaint.

Rulings on interrogatories

The court granted the motion to compel as to all disputed interrogatories, while modifying Interrogatory No. 12.

For Interrogatory No. 2, Acosta had to identify each person she claimed witnessed discrimination or retaliation, including the person’s full name and contact information if known and the acts witnessed. The court found that her existing references to groups of coworkers and administrative staff were not specific enough.

For Interrogatory No. 5, Acosta had to identify the colleagues who allegedly told her that managers had discussed her termination. The court found that her response did not identify those people specifically enough.

For Interrogatory Nos. 6 and 7, Acosta had to identify how she learned that Dryfoos had asked about hiring a contractor as her replacement and the basis for her statement that evidence of that effort disappeared from the defendants’ electronic records. The court rejected her objections and ordered responses.

For Interrogatory No. 8, Acosta had to identify the employee whom Dryfoos allegedly approached about moving from the New York Times finance department to the Athletic finance team and explain the basis for her knowledge. The court allowed Acosta to renew her objection if she could provide a sufficiently compelling reason to withhold the person’s identity.

For Interrogatory No. 12, the court granted the motion only to the extent that Acosta had to identify additional people, not already covered by other interrogatories, who had non-privileged, discoverable information that Acosta might use to support her claims or defenses. The court did not require an unlimited identification of everyone who might have information tending to refute her allegations.

For Interrogatory No. 22, Acosta had to provide the amount, description, and calculation of the damages she sought. The court rejected the explanation that expert assistance was still being developed, stating that she had to provide a damages calculation and supporting documents as well as she could at that stage.

Authorizations and final disposition

Because Acosta represented that she had already signed health, disability, and unemployment-insurance authorizations, the court denied without prejudice as moot the defendants’ motion to compel those authorizations.

As to authorizations for employment records from Acosta’s current and former employers, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer about whether Acosta’s proposal to provide tax documents or pay stubs would resolve the dispute. The parties had to jointly inform the court by December 1, 2025, whether any issue remained. The court also reminded them to confer in good faith and cooperate during discovery.

Judge John P. Cronan concluded that the defendants’ motion to compel was granted in part and denied in part and directed the clerk to close the motion at Docket Number 44. The opinion resolved discovery disputes and did not decide the underlying claims.