Gonzalez v. NYU Langone Hospitals
- Sarah Cave
- 1:18-cv-01797
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Gonzalez v. NYU Langone Hospitals, the court granted a discovery extension, denied an informal-conference request, and referred the dispute to Magistrate Judge Cave.
The defendant received an extension of the fact-discovery deadline. Its request for an informal conference was denied, and the discovery dispute was referred to Magistrate Judge Cave. The text does not state that the plaintiff was ordered to produce the requested medical authorizations.
What happened
Gonzalez v. NYU Langone Hospitals concerns a discovery dispute about the plaintiff’s requested medical authorizations in an employment case. The defendant asked for more time to complete fact discovery and sought an informal conference about the plaintiff’s refusal to provide authorizations covering complete medical, pharmacy, psychiatric, and psychological records, including alcohol- and drug-treatment and HIV-related information.
The court granted the defendant’s request to extend the fact-discovery deadline to March 16, 2020. The opinion says the plaintiff consented to that extension and that it would not affect other scheduled deadlines.
The court denied the defendant’s request for an informal conference and stated that the matter would be referred to Magistrate Judge Cave to resolve the discovery dispute separately. The text does not show that the court ordered the plaintiff to provide the requested authorizations or ruled on the parties’ underlying dispute about those records.
The detailed version
- Gonzalez v. NYU Langone Hospitals · No. 1:18-cv-01797
- Sarah Cave
- Feb. 14, 2020
Background
The defendant, identified in the filing as NYULH, asked to extend the fact-discovery deadline from January 31, 2020, to March 16, 2020. The filing states that this was the defendant’s first extension request, that the plaintiff consented, and that the extension would not affect other deadlines.
The defendant also requested an informal conference concerning the plaintiff’s response to a document request for medical authorizations. The defendant sought authorizations for records concerning medical or psychological conditions alleged in the complaint, including records involving alcohol- or drug-treatment and HIV-related information. The defendant argued that the plaintiff was seeking more than “garden variety” emotional-distress damages because she alleged “extreme stress and stressors” and had represented that her emotional-distress claim exceeded garden variety.
The plaintiff’s counsel objected to producing the requested alcohol- or drug-treatment and HIV-related information. According to the filing, the plaintiff’s counsel also refused to provide complete authorizations and declined to provide a declaration limiting the claim to garden-variety emotional distress. The parties’ effort to resolve the discovery dispute without court intervention was unsuccessful.
Rulings
The court granted the defendant’s request for an extension of the fact-discovery deadline to March 16, 2020. The court denied the defendant’s request for an informal conference. The court stated that the matter would be referred to Magistrate Judge Cave for resolution of the discovery dispute in a separate proceeding.
The text does not state that the court granted or denied a motion to compel, ordered production of medical records, or decided whether the requested records must be provided. The letter’s discussion of the defendant’s claimed entitlement to complete medical records therefore describes the defendant’s position rather than a ruling on that issue.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.