Maxius v. Mount Sinai Health Systems Inc.

Background

The opinion is an order about discovery, the pretrial exchange of information and documents. The plaintiff filed a letter-motion asking the court to compel the defendants to provide additional answers to written questions, called interrogatories, and to produce additional documents. The defendants filed a separate letter-motion asking the court to compel the plaintiff to provide additional interrogatory answers. The court ruled after a discovery conference held on December 7, 2022.

Rulings on Interrogatories

The court granted in part the parties’ discovery motions. The plaintiff was ordered to answer the defendants’ Interrogatory No. 13 as written. The plaintiff was also ordered to answer the portion of Interrogatory No. 14 seeking identification of any person or entity for whom she worked, including self-employment, or from whom she received compensation in any form, from October 11, 2021, through the present. These answers were due by December 21, 2022.

The defendants were ordered, by December 21, 2022, to answer or amend their answers to specified portions of the plaintiff’s Interrogatory Nos. 6, 9, 11, 12, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, and 25. The ordered information concerned:

- The people who placed a handbook or W-2 form in the plaintiff’s employee file; - People offered an Administrative Coordinator position in the Risk Management Department from January 2021 through September 2021; - People involved in the decision to terminate the plaintiff’s employment and people who provided information about her job performance to the decision-makers; - Written complaints or allegations against the plaintiff; - Human Resources and compliance personnel involved in the events alleged in the complaint and answer; - Written complaints or allegations made by the plaintiff against the defendants or other Mount Sinai Beth Israel personnel; - Written rules, guidelines, policies, or procedures used to evaluate the plaintiff’s job performance; - People who provided training about employment discrimination, harassment, or retaliation within or to employees in the Risk Management Department from January 1, 2015, through September 29, 2021; - Written warnings given to the plaintiff about her specific job performance; and - People who brought publicly available legal proceedings alleging employment discrimination, harassment, or retaliation by Risk Management Department personnel during the specified period.

Rulings on Document Requests

The defendants were ordered to serve amended responses complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(B) and (C) for the plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 20. The defendants were also ordered to produce all nonprivileged responsive documents within their possession, custody, or control concerning specified portions of Requests Nos. 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 20.

The required production included employee handbooks in effect during the plaintiff’s employment; documents about discipline imposed on the plaintiff or others because of complaints against the plaintiff; documents about discipline imposed on Nancy Paljevic because of complaints made by the plaintiff; video surveillance and security logs concerning the plaintiff’s departure from the defendants’ premises under escort; written warnings about the plaintiff’s job performance; specified personnel-file documents concerning complaints about interactions with the plaintiff or alleged discrimination, harassment, or retaliation; and documents supporting the defendants’ second, third, and fourth affirmative defenses. An affirmative defense is a defense that asserts additional facts or legal grounds to avoid liability even if the opposing party proves its basic allegations.

Other Directions and Disposition

The court stated that it had no obligation to rewrite or edit imprecise discovery requests. Although it narrowed some requests in this instance to promote the efficient exchange of relevant information, it advised that future requests should be drafted clearly and consistently with the applicable federal and local rules.

The parties told the court that they were conferring about changes to the amended civil case management plan and scheduling order. They were ordered to submit proposed revisions by December 14, 2022, and were told to aim to complete fact discovery by February 28, 2023.

Judge Barbara Moses granted in part the plaintiff’s motion and the defendants’ motion. The order states that all relief not expressly granted was denied.