Kaye v. New York City Health And Hospitals Corporation
- James Cott
- 1:18-cv-12137
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 27
In Kaye v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Judge Cott partly granted and partly denied Kaye’s discovery motion and granted sanctions.
Melissa Kaye and the defendants, including New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, were affected by the discovery and sanctions rulings. The order also addressed a deposition involving non-party witness Catherine Patsos and subpoenas directed to the New York City Department of Investigation and Board of Correction.
What happened
Kaye v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation is an employment-discrimination case in which Melissa Kaye alleged sex discrimination and retaliation. This order concerned discovery, not the underlying discrimination claims.
Kaye asked the court to require production of electronic records, examination materials, comparator salary and promotion information, demographic reports, emails, and records from investigative agencies. She also sought help concerning a witness’s deposition, alleged improper communications, and the cost of a canceled deposition.
Judge Cott granted the motion in part and denied it in part. He ordered production of several categories of records, denied or declined other discovery requests, treated the request to compel the completed deposition as moot, declined to intervene in the alleged communications, and awarded Kaye the court-reporter cancellation fee as a sanction.
The detailed version
- Kaye v. New York City Health And Hospitals Corporation · No. 1:18-cv-12137
- James Cott
- Dec. 9, 2020
Background
Melissa Kaye’s amended complaint alleges that she was paid less than male comparators, faced retaliation after protected activities, had her job title and work schedule changed, and had approval for leave under the Family Medical Leave Act rescinded. The order addressed Kaye’s latest motion to compel discovery and request for sanctions. The court emphasized that discovery must concern the parties’ claims and defenses and must be proportional to the needs of the case.
Discovery Rulings
The court granted some of Kaye’s requests concerning materials related to examinations conducted under Criminal Procedure Law § 730, including hearing transcripts, recordings, evaluation reports, an examination order, Patsos’s final report, and certain committee materials. It excluded Patsos’s notes and witness list because the final report was sufficient, and excluded Audit Committee minutes because the request was overly broad, vague, and disproportionate. The court directed production of the required materials by December 18, 2020, at 5:00 p.m.
The court also required production of salary, title, and promotion records for identified comparators to the extent those records had not already been produced. It did not require a broader list of all forensic evaluators. The request for EEO-1 reports and affirmative-action plans was denied because Kaye’s explanation of their relevance was speculative.
The court found Kaye’s request for complaint information and prior lawsuits appeared moot, while allowing her to raise the issue again if it was not. It declined to require additional information about the defendants’ electronic-discovery methods. It directed defendants to confirm whether all of Yang’s emails for the relevant period had been produced, but denied requests for additional emails from CEO Katz, Andrea Swenson, Anansa Brayton, and Ross McDonald.
The Patsos deposition had already occurred, so the request to compel it was denied as moot. The court directed the parties to meet and confer about whether breaks affected the seven-hour deposition limit. It denied Kaye’s request for an order concerning alleged communications and harassment. The court also declined to sign subpoenas directed to the New York City Department of Investigation and Board of Correction and, to the extent the subpoenas were operative, quashed them because the requested information appeared unrelated to Kaye’s pleaded claims. The court said it could revisit that ruling after a renewed application that addressed relevance, privilege, and duplication of previously produced documents.
Sanctions and Final Disposition
Kaye sought the court-reporter cancellation fee for the October 27 deposition, which defense counsel failed to attend after failing to calendar it. The court found no substantial justification for defendants’ conduct and granted Kaye’s motion for sanctions, ordering defendants to pay the fee.
The court criticized both sides’ failures to follow discovery deadlines, meet-and-confer requirements, filing limits, and other court rules. It set procedures for any remaining discovery disputes, including a single letter-motion by December 30, 2020, responses by January 8, 2021, and a telephone status conference on January 19, 2021.
The order states that Kaye’s motion was granted in part and denied in part. The Clerk was directed to close Docket Numbers 104, 105, and 120; mark Docket Numbers 104 and 105 as granted in part and denied in part; and mark Docket Number 120 as denied.
Read the full 27-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.