Jin v. Choi

Background

Yutong Jin, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims including assault, battery, and emotional distress against Solomon Choi. Jin alleges that Choi sexually assaulted her and caused her to contract a sexually transmitted infection while they were students at Columbia University.

At an earlier conference, the court ordered Jin to provide authorizations for four years of medical and psychiatric records. It ordered Choi to provide authorizations for six months of medical records before January 8, 2019, the date of the alleged incident. Jin later sought to set aside the part of that order concerning her records, requested four years of Choi’s medical records, and sought permission to question Choi’s lawyer about communications during Columbia’s Title IX proceedings. Jin also asked the court to assess whether Choi had mental-health issues that predisposed him to commit sexual assault, but she withdrew that request at the February 23 conference.

Rulings on the discovery requests

The court denied Jin’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to set aside the earlier discovery order. The court explained that Rule 60(b) applies to final judgments, orders, or proceedings, while the earlier discovery order was an interlocutory order, meaning it was not final. The court also stated that the motion would fail even if treated as a request for reconsideration because Jin relied on arguments she could have raised earlier and did not show new evidence, a change in controlling law, clear error, or manifest injustice.

The court concluded that Jin’s claims for intentional and negligent emotional distress placed her mental condition at issue, making her mental-health records subject to discovery. The court distinguished discovery—information exchanged before trial—from admissibility, which concerns whether evidence may be presented to a jury at trial.

The court denied, without prejudice, Jin’s request to stay damages discovery while liability issues were resolved. The court also denied her request to bifurcate liability and damages discovery. It found that Jin had not shown sufficient prejudice and noted that she had not signed a proposed confidentiality agreement that could protect her records from wider disclosure.

The court denied Jin’s request for four years of Choi’s medical records. The earlier order allowed requests for additional records only if discovery showed they were warranted and the requesting party demonstrated good cause. The court found that Jin had satisfied neither requirement. It also stated that Choi had not waived his privilege over mental-health records merely by defending against the lawsuit.

The court stated that Jin was free to serve interrogatories, or written questions, on Choi and his attorneys. However, it denied her request to waive the attorney-client privilege so that Choi’s lawyer could answer questions about communications with Choi during the Title IX proceedings. The court found that Jin had not provided a factual basis establishing probable cause that those communications were made to further a crime, fraud, or qualifying intentional tort. Allegations and speculation were insufficient.

Other orders and disposition

The court ordered Jin to provide, by March 2, 2021, signed authorizations for medical or mental-health providers she had consulted during the prior four years. It warned that further failure to comply with the earlier discovery order could result in sanctions. The court also ordered Choi to file a proposed protective order by March 2, 2021, and required him to give Jin three weeks’ notice before her deposition.

The court denied Choi’s request to communicate and resolve discovery matters with Jin in writing rather than by telephone. The parties were directed to coordinate with the Southern District’s Mediation Program, meet and confer about discovery disputes, and comply with discovery deadlines. The court warned that violations could result in sanctions, including preclusion or dismissal of claims or defenses. The order did not decide the merits of Jin’s assault, battery, or emotional-distress claims.