Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 12, 2023

Beddoe v. Mount Sinai Health System, Inc.

Judge
Rochon
Docket
1:22-cv-03080
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Beddoe v. Mount Sinai Health System, Judge Rochon granted in part and denied in part Beddoe’s request to depose two executives.

Who this affects

Dr. Ann Marie Beddoe, Mount Sinai Health System, Inc., and the defendants’ Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer, who were the requested deponents.

What happened

In Beddoe v. Mount Sinai Health System, Dr. Ann Marie Beddoe asked to take two additional depositions after defendants produced documents near the end of discovery. She said the documents suggested that Mount Sinai’s chief executive officer and chief operating officer were involved in decisions about her contract and compensation, including an alleged 2020 salary reduction.

The court found some likelihood that the executives had relevant information and was not convinced that other witnesses could provide the same information. It allowed the depositions on two topics: what the executives knew about Beddoe’s alleged protected activity and any role they played in negotiating her contract.

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted in part and denied in part the request. The depositions had to occur by April 28, 2023, last no more than one hour each, and take place at times and locations convenient for the executives, including remotely if defendants chose. The court also adjourned the post-discovery conference and set related deadlines.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Beddoe v. Mount Sinai Health System, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-03080
Judge
Rochon
Date
Apr. 12, 2023

Background

Dr. Ann Marie Beddoe requested permission to take two depositions of executives employed by defendants after defendants produced additional documents at the end of the discovery period. Defendants opposed the request, arguing that the depositions were disproportionate to the needs of the case and that the executives were “APEX witnesses”—senior corporate officials who might not have information unavailable from other sources.

Beddoe alleges that defendants retaliated against her through a 2020 salary reduction after she opposed workplace gender discrimination. Fact discovery had closed on March 31, 2023, except for one deposition previously allowed to proceed on April 13. Defendants produced one additional document on March 28 and 21 more on March 31. According to Beddoe’s descriptions, emails suggested that Mount Sinai’s Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Kenneth Davis, and Chief Operating Officer, Margaret Pastuszko, were involved in decisions about her 2020 contract and compensation. Beddoe had apparently already deposed seven witnesses without the benefit of those documents.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the standard for depositions of corporate executives, considering whether the person likely had relevant knowledge, whether another source could provide the same information, the possibility of harassment, and potential business disruption. It found some likelihood that the CEO and COO possessed relevant knowledge and was not convinced that other sources could provide identical information. The court also noted that the documents were produced after almost all other employee depositions had taken place. Defendants did not suggest that Beddoe sought the depositions to harass the executives. The court stated that busy schedules or a claimed lack of unique knowledge did not by themselves justify preventing otherwise proper discovery.

Ruling

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted in part and denied in part Beddoe’s request. The court granted leave to depose the CEO and COO by April 28, 2023, limited to: (1) any knowledge the witnesses had of Beddoe’s alleged protected activity when they allegedly made decisions about her contract; and (2) any role the witnesses played in negotiating her contract. Each deposition was limited to one hour and had to occur at a time and location convenient for the deponent, including remotely by video if defendants chose.

Because of the order and the May 24, 2023 deadline for expert discovery, the court adjourned the May 18 post-discovery pretrial conference to June 16, 2023, at noon. It also set deadlines for the parties’ settlement-conference request, any summary-judgment premotion letters and opposition, and a joint status letter.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.