Rossbach v. Montefiore Medical Center
- Denise Cote
- 1:19-cv-05758
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rossbach v. Montefiore Medical Center, Judge Cote denied Rossbach’s reconsideration motion concerning sanctions and a forensic phone examination.
Andrea Rossbach, the defendants, and their counsel; the court denied Rossbach’s request for reconsideration concerning sanctions, costs, and a forensic examination of electronic devices.
What happened
In Andrea Rossbach v. Montefiore Medical Center, Rossbach asked the court to reconsider its denial of her request for sanctions and costs against the defendants and their lawyers. She also asked the court to require a forensic examination of electronic devices used by Norman Morales to communicate with her.
Rossbach argued that the defendants’ lawyers had said during discovery that Morales’s phones would receive the same forensic examination as her phone, including checking for altered or deleted messages. The defendants responded that the dispute resulted from a misunderstanding about the word “forensic” and that they intended only to retrieve and search data.
Judge Denise Cote denied Rossbach’s reconsideration motion. The court stated that Rossbach had not presented any issue of fact or law that was not already included in her filings and considered before the court denied her earlier sanctions motion.
The detailed version
- Rossbach v. Montefiore Medical Center · No. 1:19-cv-05758
- Denise Cote
- May 3, 2021
Background
Rossbach asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of her April 7, 2021 motion for sanctions and costs against the defendants and their counsel. She alleged that the defendants and their counsel had knowingly and willfully misrepresented whether a forensic examination had been performed on Norman Morales’s phones.
Rossbach also asked the court to order the defendants, at their own cost, to conduct the previously agreed-upon forensic examination of electronic devices Morales used to communicate with her. She argued that the examination was intended to retrieve information about a text message, including whether messages had been altered or deleted.
Parties’ Positions
According to Rossbach’s letter, the parties had agreed to forensic examinations of both Rossbach’s and Morales’s phones. On March 31, 2021, defense counsel stated that the defendants had not engaged a forensic expert to examine Morales’s phone. Defense counsel later characterized the dispute as a misunderstanding or miscommunication about the term “forensic,” asserting that the agreed operations involved data retrieval and searches rather than a broader forensic examination.
Rossbach argued that this explanation conflicted with defense counsel’s earlier statements that the same procedure used for her phone would be used for electronic devices Morales had used to communicate with her. She contended that the contradiction supplied an additional basis for sanctions and costs.
Ruling
The court denied Rossbach’s motion for reconsideration. The endorsement stated that Rossbach had not presented any issue of fact or law that had not already been presented in her filings and considered by the court before its April 22, 2021 ruling on her motion for sanctions. The opinion text does not state that the court granted Rossbach’s request for a forensic examination or awarded sanctions or costs.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.