Branch v. State University of New York Downstate Medical Center
- Analisa Torres
- 1:18-cv-09516
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
Branch v. State University of New York: Judge Freeman denied most discovery requests but allowed limited questioning of SUNY.
Romain R. Branch, State University of New York, Dr. Ayman Fanous, Dr. Wayne J. Riley, Dr. Carlos Pato, and Dr. David Wlody; the ruling primarily controls the parties’ remaining discovery.
What happened
Romain R. Branch v. State University of New York, et al., is an employment-discrimination case involving requests for additional discovery. Branch asked to depose Dr. Wayne J. Riley, obtain documents from non-party doctors Carlos Pato and David Wlody, and take a deposition of SUNY covering topics in his fourth notice.
The court denied the request to depose Dr. Riley because Branch raised the issue late, Riley was a high-ranking official, and the evidence of Riley’s direct involvement was unclear. The court also denied the request for documents from Drs. Pato and Wlody because the defendants represented that responsive materials had already been produced, and the doctors’ testimony did not show that they possessed additional documents.
Judge Debra Freeman denied Branch’s motion to compel, except that SUNY must provide one or more witnesses for a limited Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on nine topics identified by the court. Those topics include positions and responsibilities, the residency program, diversity office, employment decisions, departmental organization, committees, events, and the evaluative file review process.
The detailed version
- Branch v. State University of New York Downstate Medical Center · No. 1:18-cv-09516
- Analisa Torres
- Sept. 17, 2020
Background
This employment-discrimination case was before Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman for general pretrial supervision. Plaintiff Romain R. Branch moved to compel three forms of discovery: (1) the deposition of Dr. Wayne J. Riley, identified as the current president of SUNY Downstate Medical Center; (2) production of documents under subpoenas served on non-party witnesses Dr. Carlos Pato and Dr. David Wlody; and (3) a deposition of defendant State University of New York under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), based on topics in Branch’s “Fourth” deposition notice.
The court had previously extended the discovery period through September 25, 2020. It had also held two conferences addressing the scope of Branch’s Rule 30(b)(6) topics and had instructed him to narrow topics the court considered overbroad. Branch nevertheless sought a deposition covering all topics in his fourth notice.
Dr. Riley’s Deposition
Branch alleged that Dr. Riley directed his removal as Director of the Adult Psychiatry Residency Program, convened meetings concerning his tenure as director, and may have been involved in the termination of his contract. The defendants argued that Dr. Riley was a high-ranking government official and that Branch had to show exceptional circumstances, such as unique first-hand knowledge of matters involved in the case, to justify the deposition. Branch argued that Dr. Riley had unique first-hand knowledge.
The court denied this part of the motion. It emphasized that the July 28 submission identifying remaining discovery did not mention Dr. Riley’s deposition, that Branch waited until August 26 to notice the deposition after Dr. Pato’s July 31 deposition, and that the discovery period was close to ending. The court also found that the evidence of Dr. Riley’s direct involvement was, at most, ambiguous, while his high-ranking status was undisputed.
Subpoenaed Documents
Branch also sought to compel documents from Drs. Pato and Wlody. The defendants represented that both doctors’ documents had been searched in response to Branch’s document requests and that responsive materials had already been produced. The defendants further stated that both doctors had been deposed and had not indicated that they personally possessed additional documents. According to the defendants, Dr. Wlody was unaware of the subpoenaed documents, while Dr. Pato knew some existed but did not possess them.
The court denied this part of the motion because Branch had not shown that the doctors withheld responsive documents or that responsive documents had generally been withheld from production in the case.
SUNY Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition
Rule 30(b)(6) allows a party to require an organization to designate one or more witnesses to testify about specified topics. The court denied Branch’s request to proceed on all topics in his fourth notice but permitted a limited deposition of SUNY. SUNY must designate one or more witnesses, and Branch’s questioning must be limited to these nine topics:
- The appointment process, qualifications, job responsibilities, and terms and conditions for the Clinical Assistant Professor in Psychiatry and Director of the Adult Psychiatry Residency Program positions at SUNY Downstate;
- The purpose, function, and operation of the Adult Psychiatry Residency Program;
- The purpose, function, and operation of the Office of Diversity Inclusion;
- The people involved in communications, discussions, and correspondence about replacing Branch as director and not renewing his employment contract, and the reasons for those decisions;
- The reasons Dr. Pato ceased being Dean of SUNY’s College of Medicine and the identity of his replacement or replacements;
- The mission, resources, and organizational structure of the Psychiatry Department at SUNY College of Medicine and the Department of Psychiatry;
- Psychiatry Department committees, their members, and meeting dates from December 1, 2015, through June 30, 2018;
- People working in the Psychiatry Department who were invited to, and attended, Grand Rounds events or luncheons from December 1, 2015, through June 30, 2018; and
- The Evaluative File Review Process.
Disposition
Judge Debra Freeman concluded that Branch’s motion to compel was denied, except to the extent that Branch could proceed with SUNY’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on the topics framed by the court.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.