Mahulawde v. Fashion Institute of Technology

What the plaintiff requested

Plaintiff Dawnn Karen Mahulawde submitted a letter motion asking the court to compel two forms of discovery:

1. A deposition of Deliwe Kekana. The plaintiff argued that Kekana, identified in the letter as FIT's Affirmative Action and Title IX Officer, was an officer and managing agent of the Fashion Institute of Technology. The plaintiff contended that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1), FIT could be required to produce her for a deposition based on a deposition notice rather than a subpoena.

2. Production of documents withheld under a claimed “self-critical analysis” privilege. The plaintiff stated that defendants had withheld or redacted at least nine groups of documents and several interrogatory responses on that basis. The plaintiff argued that the privilege was not recognized or did not apply to the materials at issue.

The letter described the parties' disagreements and the plaintiff's legal arguments. Those arguments were not decided in this order.

What the court did

The court stated that it had received the plaintiff's letter motion to compel production, docketed as Dkt. 37. Under the court's rules for discovery disputes, the defendants' response was due November 7, 2022. The court did not invite a reply.

The order did not grant or deny the motion to compel, determine whether Kekana could be deposed by notice, or decide whether the self-critical-analysis privilege protected any documents. The order was signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on November 4, 2022.