Edelman v. NYU Langone Health System

Background

Dr. Sari Edelman sued NYU Langone entities and individual defendants. The opinion states that she asserts claims under the federal Equal Pay Act, New York’s equal-pay law, Title VII retaliation provisions, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. A jury trial was scheduled for July 10, 2023.

Edelman moved in limine, meaning she asked the court to decide before trial whether certain evidence or testimony could be presented. Her motion sought to exclude six defense witnesses—Bryan Maguire, Rashidat Ogbara, Brian Kim, Patricia Faslowich, Deborah Porges, and Claudia Rose—because they were not listed in the defendants’ initial disclosures. She also sought an order sequestering the individual defendants from one another’s trial testimony. The defendants separately moved to exclude certain evidence of damages, but this order did not decide that motion.

Undisclosed Witnesses

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A) generally requires parties to disclose individuals likely to have information they may use to support their claims or defenses. A failure to disclose can lead to exclusion under Rule 37(c)(1). The court considered the explanation for the disclosure failure, the importance of the testimony, prejudice to the opposing party, and whether a continuance would be possible. It also considered whether a less severe response than exclusion would address any prejudice.

The court granted in part and denied in part Edelman’s motion to exclude the witnesses. It denied the motion as to Claudia Rose, Bryan Maguire, Rashidat Ogbara, and Brian Kim. The court found that Edelman had not shown prejudice from the failure to list them in the initial disclosures. Rose and Maguire had been identified in responses under the Initial Discovery Protocols for Employment Cases Alleging Adverse Action, which the defendants argued were intended to substitute for the usual initial disclosures. The court also found that Ogbara’s and Kim’s relevance was apparent from the discovery and Edelman’s own dealings with them.

The court did not exclude Patricia Faslowich or Deborah Porges. Instead, it permitted Edelman to depose each of them remotely if more convenient, for no more than 30 minutes each, and required the depositions to be completed by July 6, 2023. Each side was to pay its own fees, while Edelman was to pay the deposition costs. The court stated that the short depositions would eliminate any possible prejudice without requiring a delay of the trial.

Sequestration

Edelman also sought to prevent the four individual defendants from hearing one another’s testimony. Federal Rule of Evidence 615 generally requires witnesses to be kept from hearing other witnesses’ testimony when a party requests sequestration, but the rule does not authorize excluding a natural-person party from the courtroom. The court concluded that the individual defendants could attend the entire trial because Edelman had joined them as parties seeking relief arising from the same series of events.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Edelman’s motions in limine. It directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket Number 183. The defendants’ motion concerning Edelman’s damages evidence remained for a later memorandum and order.