Carmody v. New York University
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-08186
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Carmody v. New York University, Judge Schofield ordered defendants to produce documents about the university’s response to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education under a protective order.
Kristin A. Carmody and the defendants, including New York University; the defendants were required to produce the requested documents under a protective order.
What happened
In Carmody v. New York University, the plaintiff sought documents concerning New York University’s response to an inquiry from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. The defendants opposed producing them, arguing that the documents were irrelevant and confidential.
The court found that the inquiry related to the plaintiff’s allegations and that the university’s response could help her identify possible comparators. It ordered the defendants to produce the requested documents by August 19, 2022, subject to the protective order.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield also ruled that the defendants’ asserted privileges were not recognized under federal law and directed the clerk to close the motions listed at Docket Nos. 42, 47, and 54.
The detailed version
- Carmody v. New York University · No. 1:21-cv-08186
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 16, 2022
Background
On July 25, 2022, Kristin A. Carmody filed a pre-motion letter concerning the defendants’ refusal to produce documents about New York University’s response to a letter from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). The defendants opposed the request on July 29, arguing that the documents were not relevant and were confidential. The parties filed supplemental letters on August 9.
Court’s ruling
The court ordered the defendants to produce the requested documents by August 19, 2022, pursuant to the protective order. The court stated that ACGME’s inquiry related to Carmody’s allegations and that New York University’s response might help her identify potential comparators. Relying on the reasons stated in Morshed v. Hospital, No. 16 Civ. 2862, 2017 WL 543236 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2017), the court stated that the defendants’ asserted privileges were not recognized under federal law.
The clerk was directed to close the motions at Docket Nos. 42, 47, and 54. This order addressed document production and did not decide the underlying claims described in the opinion text.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.