Baptiste v. The City University of New York
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-02785
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Baptiste v. City University of New York, Judge Furman granted defendants’ discovery request in part and denied it in part.
Baptiste must provide fuller information about eight listed witnesses and remove, in good faith, any listed person she no longer believes has discoverable information. City University of New York and Vincent Boudreau obtained only part of the discovery relief they requested.
What happened
In Baptiste v. City University of New York, defendants said Baptiste’s witness disclosures and answers to questions were too vague and included people without relevant information. They pointed to a deposition in which Lerrell Turner said she did not know about Baptiste’s work or mental condition.
Defendants asked the court to require revised disclosures and answers identifying people with relevant knowledge and describing the subjects of that knowledge. Baptiste’s lawyer opposed revising the materials and said defendants could ask Baptiste about the listed people during her deposition.
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the request in part and denied it in part. He ordered Baptiste to provide more detailed descriptions for eight listed former employees and to remove, in good faith, anyone she no longer believed had information that could be used in the case, by February 12, 2024.
The detailed version
- Baptiste v. The City University of New York · No. 1:22-cv-02785
- Jesse Furman
- Feb. 8, 2024
Background
Defendants City University of New York and Vincent Boudreau asked the court to compel Baptiste to provide revised initial disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and revised answers to defendants’ interrogatories. Rule 26 requires a party to identify each person likely to have discoverable information, along with that person’s contact information if known and a description of the subjects of the information.
Baptiste’s initial disclosures listed 23 people and generally said they had “knowledge and/or information of the facts and claims contained in the Complaint, and possible related documentation.” Her later interrogatory answers listed additional people and referred back to the initial disclosures. Defendants argued that these descriptions were insufficient and that the list included people who did not have relevant information.
Defendants relied particularly on the January 24, 2024, deposition of Lerrell Turner, whom Baptiste had identified as having information about the case and Baptiste’s emotional and psychological damages. Turner testified that Baptiste had not discussed her mental condition with her and that Turner did not know Baptiste had worked at or been terminated from CCNY. Defendants also stated that Baptiste had identified Frank White even though he was deceased.
Court’s ruling
The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ request. It concluded that Rule 26 requires more than a skeletal list. But the court found that the relevance of most of the 26 listed witnesses was readily apparent from their job titles, references in the disclosures, and cross-references to the interrogatory answers.
The court ordered Baptiste, by February 12, 2024, to provide a more detailed description of the subjects of discoverable information for eight people identified only by name and limited descriptions as former employees of defendants: Zinnanti, Trevisan, Driscoll, Reina, Hill, Witherspoon, Siderakis, and Kalia. The court also ordered Baptiste, by that date and in good faith, to remove from the list anyone she no longer believed had discoverable information. The Clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 50.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.