Dowling v. New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-02114
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Dowling v. New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell, Judge Liman granted Dowling’s motion to quash a subpoena and denied the motion’s remaining request.
Jennifer Dowling was protected from the subpoena for her NYU Langone personnel records. New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center and Brian Schneider could not enforce that subpoena through the court. NYU Langone was not ordered to take any action because it was not before the court.
What happened
In Dowling v. New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center and Brian Schneider, Jennifer Dowling challenged a subpoena seeking her personnel records from NYU Langone Medical Center, where she had previously worked. She argued that the records were irrelevant and implicated her privacy.
The defendants said the records could support their defenses that Dowling was not qualified for her job and that they had legitimate reasons for terminating her employment. The court found that the defendants had not shown the records were relevant to either defense and described the request as a fishing expedition.
Judge Lewis J. Liman ruled that Dowling had the right to challenge the subpoena because she had a privacy interest in her personnel records. He granted the motion to quash but denied her remaining request for orders directed to NYU Langone or requiring the defendants to destroy any documents they might receive.
The detailed version
- Dowling v. New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center · No. 1:19-cv-02114
- Lewis Liman
- Mar. 16, 2020
Background
Jennifer Dowling sued New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center and Brian Schneider over the termination of her employment. She alleged discrimination based on pregnancy, sex or gender, and pregnancy-related illness under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The defendants told Dowling that they would serve a subpoena on NYU Langone Medical Center, her former employer. The subpoena sought her personnel file concerning her employment in NYU Langone’s neurosurgery and neurology unit from 2011 to 2014. Dowling moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3) to quash, or cancel, the subpoena.
Standing to Challenge the Subpoena
The court held that Dowling had standing to move to quash the subpoena. Although a subpoena challenge generally must be brought by the nonparty receiving the subpoena, a party may challenge it when the party claims a personal right or privilege in the requested material. The court found that Dowling had a privacy interest in her personnel records.
Relevance and Burden
The court explained that subpoenaed information must satisfy the relevance and proportionality requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). The defendants argued that Dowling’s records could support their defenses that they had non-pretextual reasons for terminating her and that she was not qualified for her job.
The court rejected both arguments. It found that the defendants had not shown how Dowling’s earlier job performance would be relevant to whether her termination by NYU was based on legitimate reasons or gender bias. The defendants also had not shown that the records would establish whether Dowling was qualified for her position at NYP. The court noted that Dowling had already explained the employment-date issue in her deposition and that the defendants could use her testimony regarding certain procedures without obtaining her personnel records.
The court further concluded that the defendants’ hope that the records would reveal additional information was a fishing expedition. It held that the defendants had not established that the records would bear on Dowling’s qualifications or on whether her termination was discriminatory.
Requested Relief and Ruling
Dowling also asked the court to order NYU Langone not to respond to the subpoena or, if documents had already been provided, to order the defendants to shred them. The court declined to issue orders against NYU Langone because that entity was not before the court. It also stated that it would not order the defendants to destroy documents if NYU Langone voluntarily produced them.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the motion to quash. The remainder of Dowling’s motion was denied.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.