Branch v. State University of New York Downstate Medical Center

Background

The underlying action is an employment-discrimination case brought by Romain R. Branch against the State University of New York and other defendants. Branch alleges that he was subjected to a hostile work environment, demoted, and terminated for discriminatory reasons. He identified Kevin L. Antoine in his required disclosures as a person who might have information about his treatment and working conditions, as well as those of other employees.

According to defendants, Antoine had served as SUNY Downstate’s Chief Diversity Officer and had overseen its Office of Diversity and Inclusion, which investigated discrimination and harassment complaints. Defendants sought Antoine’s deposition because Branch alleged that he had made complaints to that office and because Antoine might have information about similarly situated employees.

Motions and Positions

Defendants moved to compel Antoine’s appearance under a subpoena. At first, defendants understood that Antoine would testify if the deposition took place on a weekend, but they sought an order requiring a weekday deposition. Defendants later reported that Antoine was unwilling to appear at all and alternatively asked the court to prevent Branch from using Antoine’s testimony.

Antoine filed a motion to quash, meaning to cancel, the subpoena while representing himself. He stated that he had recently started a new job, lacked accumulated time off, lived in New Jersey, worked in Pennsylvania, and believed a weekend deposition would avoid undue burden or expense. He also argued that defendants were trying to harass or burden him and gain access to privileged information connected with his separate litigation against SUNY. Defendants denied those purposes and stated that they did not intend to seek privileged information.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that Antoine had a meaningful possibility of possessing information relevant to the claims or defenses. His former position and Branch’s identification of him as a potential witness supported that conclusion. Because defendants had shown that possible relevance, the court placed on Antoine the burden of showing why discovery from him should be denied.

The court found that Antoine had not met that burden. He did not dispute that he might have relevant information, and he provided no evidence beyond the existence of his separate lawsuit to support his claim that defendants’ purpose was harassment. The court stated that concerns about privileged or irrelevant questions could be addressed during the deposition. It also found that Branch’s failure to contact Antoine beforehand did not prevent defendants from discovering what relevant information Antoine might have before Branch sought a declaration or trial testimony from him.

The court further held that Antoine’s recently started job and lack of accrued time off did not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance requiring a weekend deposition. It therefore declined to require defendants to conduct the deposition on a weekend.

Ruling

Judge Debra Freeman granted defendants’ motion to compel Antoine to appear for deposition and denied Antoine’s motion to quash the subpoena. The court ordered Antoine to appear on a weekday agreed upon by the parties and Antoine, but no later than April 17, 2020. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the two motions on the docket.