Jane Doe 16 v. Columbia University
- Andrew Carter
- 1:20-cv-01791
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Hoechstetter v. Columbia University, Judge Parker granted the Government’s intervention request and temporarily stayed most discovery.
The ruling allowed the United States Government to participate in the two civil cases and paused most fact discovery affecting the plaintiffs, Robert Hadden, Columbia University, and New York Presbyterian Hospital. Document discovery could continue under an attorneys’-eyes-only restriction.
What happened
In Marissa Hoechstetter et al. v. Columbia University et al. and the related Jane Doe 16 et al. v. Columbia University et al., the United States Government asked to join the civil cases and pause fact discovery because defendant Robert Hadden’s criminal trial was approaching. Hadden objected, while the plaintiffs and institutional defendants did not object.
The court found that the Government met the requirements for intervening because it had an interest in protecting the integrity of the criminal case, that interest could be harmed by overlapping civil discovery, and the existing parties could not adequately protect it. The court also found that the civil and criminal cases involved overlapping allegations, the criminal case was actively proceeding, and the public interest supported a pause. The court considered Hadden’s concerns but found the likely prejudice limited.
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the Government’s requests. Fact discovery in both civil cases was stayed through August 8, 2022, although document discovery could continue under an attorneys’-eyes-only restriction. The Government was also required to state whether it would seek another stay.
The detailed version
- Jane Doe 16 v. Columbia University · No. 1:20-cv-01791
- Andrew Carter
- June 8, 2022
Background
The United States Government moved to intervene in two related civil cases and requested a limited stay of discovery through August 8, 2022. The requested stay would pause fact discovery, while allowing document discovery to proceed on an attorneys’-eyes-only basis. The Government said the stay was needed because Robert Hadden, a defendant in both civil cases, was scheduled for a criminal trial in United States v. Hadden.
Hadden opposed the requests. Columbia University, New York Presbyterian Hospital, and the plaintiffs did not object. The court heard from the parties and the Government at a May 25, 2022 conference.
Intervention
The court applied four requirements for intervention: a timely application, an interest in the case, a risk that the interest could be impaired by the case’s outcome, and inadequate protection of that interest by the existing parties.
The court found that the Government satisfied all four requirements. No party appeared to be prejudiced by the timing of the motion. The Government also showed an interest in protecting the integrity of its criminal case against Hadden, a risk that overlapping civil discovery could impair that interest, and a reason the other parties could not adequately protect it.
Stay of Discovery
The court considered six factors used when a civil case may overlap with a parallel criminal proceeding:
- The civil and criminal cases involved allegations that Hadden sexually abused patients under his care, and the parties agreed that the matters were intertwined. - The criminal case was active: a grand jury had indicted Hadden, and his trial was scheduled to begin on September 12, 2022. - The plaintiffs favored a stay, in part because they anticipated that New York law might change in a way that could allow claims previously subject to a statute of limitations. - The institutional defendants said a stay would neither benefit nor prejudice them. Hadden argued that the stay would prevent him from obtaining information and evidence relevant to his defenses. The court found this prejudice limited because the Government had disclosure obligations in the criminal case and sought only a short stay. - The court found the effect on judicial resources neutral because the requested stay would end before the criminal case was resolved and would allow some document discovery to continue. - The court found that the public interest favored a stay because premature disclosure could impair the criminal prosecution.
On balance, the court concluded that these factors favored granting the stay.
Disposition
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the Government’s requests to intervene and for a limited stay. Fact discovery in the civil actions was stayed through August 8, 2022, except that document discovery could proceed on an attorneys’-eyes-only basis. The Government was ordered to file a letter by August 2 stating whether it intended to seek an additional stay after August 8. If it did, the parties were directed to file a joint letter stating their positions.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.