Pal v. N.Y. Univ.

UN ITED STATES D ISTR ICT COURT
SOUTHERN D ISTR ICT OF NEW YORK
———————————————————-x

NEELU PAL , M .D .,

P la in tif f ,

-aga inst-

NEW YORK UN IVERS ITY ,

D e fendan t.

:

(REV ISED )
M EMORANDUM
:
DEC IS ION AND ORDER

:

06 C iv . 5892 (BS J)(FM )
:

:

———————————————————-x

FRANK MAA S , U n ited S ta te s M ag is tra te Judge .

I .

In troduc tion

In th is ac t ion , p la in t iff N ee lu P a l (“P a l”) con tend s tha t the N ew Y o rk

U n ive rs ity Schoo l o f M ed ic ine , sued he re in a s N ew Y o rk U n ive rs ity (“NYU ” ), induced

he r to accep t a po st-re sidency lapa ro scop ic fe llow sh ip th rough f raudu len t

m isrep re sen ta tion s rega rd ing the b read th o f its p rog ram and , la te r, w rong ly te rm ina ted he r

in re ta lia tion fo r h e r “w h is tle b low ing” abou t sub s tanda rd cond ition s and pa tien t ca re .

(S ee C om p l. ¶¶ 1 , 26 -30 , 32 -34 ).

NYU ha s m oved fo r a p ro tec tive o rde r ba rring Pa l f rom hav ing any fu rthe r

con tac t w ith any pa tien ts o f D r. Ch ristine R en (“R en” ), d irec to r o f the fe llow sh ip

p rog ram , and D r. G eo rge F ield ing (“F ield ing” ), he r pa rtne r in NYU ’s lapa ro scop ic

p rac t ice . Pa l , in turn , has c ross -moved fo r an o rde r com pe l ling NYU to p rov ide fu r ther

respon ses to i ts d iscovery reques ts . Fo r the reason s se t fo r th be low , NYU ’s mo t ion fo r a

p ro tec tive o rde r is g ran ted , and Pa l’s c ro ss-m o tion to compe l is g ran ted in pa rt and den ied

in pa rt.

II .

B ackg round

The fo llow ing fac ts se t fo rth in the comp la in t a re p re sum ed to be true fo r

p resen t pu rposes .

Pa l is a fo re ign -tra ined doc to r w ho com p leted tw o residency p rog ram s in

the U n ited S ta te s be tw een 2000 and 2005 . (Id . ¶ 6 ). In N ovembe r 2004 , she found a

lis ting fo r the NYU fe llow sh ip on a w eb site ope ra ted by the Fe llow sh ip C ounc il, an

o rgan iza tion tha t d istribu tes in fo rm a tion abou t fe llow sh ips and adm in iste rs a fe llow sh ip

m a tch ing p rog ram . (Id . ¶¶ 7 , 8 ) . The lis ting s ta ted tha t the lapa ro scop ic p rac tice a t NYU

“pe r fo rm ed a w ide range o f adv anced lapa roscop ic p rocedu res inc lud ing co lon resec tion s ,

he rn ia repa irs , ga stric bypa ss p rocedu re s a s w e ll a s ba ria tric (‘w e igh t lo ss’) p rocedu re s

su ch as g astric band inse rtion s.” (Id . ¶ 9 ). B e fo re app lying , Pa l also in terv iew ed w ith

R en and F ie ld ing , w ho con f irm ed the “w ide range o f lapa ro scop ic p rocedu re s” tha t she

w ou ld lea rn to pe r fo rm if accep ted as a fe l low . ( Id . ¶ 10 ) . Fo l low ing these d iscuss ion s ,

Pa l ranked the NYU lapa ro scop ic p rac tice “ve ry h igh” on he r p re ference lis t and w a s

se lec ted by NYU fo r a fe llow sh ip tha t began in O c tober 2006 . (Id . ¶¶ 12 , 13 ).

A f ter a rriv ing a t NYU , Pa l lea rned tha t the lap a ro scop ic p rac tice a t its

ho sp ita l in fac t focu sed a lm o s t exc lu s ive ly on ba ria tric p rocedu re s and thu s w ou ld deny

2

he r any “oppo rtun ity to deve lop expe rience o r expe rtise in o the r types o f lap a ro scop ic

p rocedu re s .” (Id . ¶ 14 ). Pa l a lso conc luded tha t R en and F ie ld ing w e re no t tak ing the

tim e nece ssa ry to und e rstand the m ed ica l h isto r ies o f the i r pa t ien ts, ob ta in the pa tien ts’

in fo rm ed con sen t p rio r to su rge ry, and en su re p rope r po s t-ope ra tive pa tien t ca re . (Id .

¶¶ 16 -17 ). S he vo iced these conce rn s to bo th R en and F ie ld ing . (Id . ¶ 19 ).

In Janua ry 2006 , one o f F ie ld ing ’s pa tien ts d ied fo llow ing su rge ry, and

ano the r pa tien t su f fered seve re po st-ope ra tive comp lica tion s . (Id . ¶¶ 20 -21 ) . H av ing

g row n inc rea sing ly concerned abou t the w e lfa re o f Ren ’s and F ie ld ing ’s pa tien ts , Pa l

p laced te lephone ca lls on o r abou t Janua ry 21 , 2006 , to pa tien ts schedu led fo r su rge ry the

fo llow ing day. D u ring the en su ing conve rsa tion s , Pa l “w a rn [ed ] them o f the risk s o f the

su rge ry and . . . in fo rm [ed ] them tha t the re had been a recen t dea th .” She a lso

“encou raged the pa tien ts to reque st add itiona l in fo rm a tion” f rom R en , F ie ld ing , and

NYU . (Id . ¶ 22 ).

O n January 24 , Pa l m e t w i th D r . C aro l B ern s te in (“B ern s te in”) , NYU ’s

D irec to r o f G radua te M ed ica l Educa tion , to exp re ss he r concern tha t inadequa te se rv ice s

w e re be ing p rov ided by R en and F ie ld ing . L a te r tha t day, Pa l a lso summ a rized her

conce rn s abou t R en and F ie ld ing in an e -m a il to B ern s te in . (See D ocke t N o . 31 ) . NYU

su spended Pa l the fo llow ing day; she sub sequen tly w a s te rm ina ted on Feb rua ry 21 , 2006 .

(C om p l. ¶¶ 23 -24 ).

Pa l f iled th is ac tion on A ugu s t 4 , 2006 . S ince then , Pa l ha s con tac ted a t

3

lea st one fo rm e r pa tien t o f R en and F ie ld ing w ho had ba ria tric su rge ry a t NYU . B a sed on

tha t conve rsa tion , NYU ha s m oved fo r a p ro tec tive o rde r p reven ting Pa l f rom con tac ting

any add itiona l pa tien ts o f R en , F ield ing , o r NYU . (D ocke t N o . 21 ). NYU a lso ob jec ts to

Pa l’s d iscove ry reque sts seek ing the med ica l reco rd s o f tha t pa tien t and o the r spec if ied

NYU pa tien ts . (D ocke t N o . 29 ) . In he r c ro ss-m o tion , Pa l seek s to compe l the p roduc tion

o f these and o the r reco rd s . (D ocke t N o . 24 ).

III .

D iscu ss ion

A .

Pa l’s M o t ion to C om pe l D iscovery

1 .

Ind iv idua l Pa tien t M ed ica l R eco rd s

Pa l’s D ocumen t R eque st N o s . 14 th rough 16 , 19 , 21 , and 22 seek

d isc lo su re o f the m ed ica l reco rd s o f s ix nam ed NYU pa tien ts (one pe r reques t) . NYU

ob jec ted to the p roduc t ion o f these docum en ts on the g round s tha t the reques ts w ere

“ove rb road , irre levan t, and no t rea sonab ly ca lcu la ted to lead to the d iscove ry o f

adm iss ib le ev idence ,” and tha t the in fo rm a tion sough t w as “p riv ileg ed unde r the H ea lth

In su rance Po r tab ility and A ccoun tab ility A c t” o f 1996 (“H IPAA ” ), Pub . L . N o . 104 -191 ,

110 S ta t. 1936 .

B ecau se th is case is founded on d ive rsity ju risd iction and ra ise s on ly sta te

law c la im s , N ew Y o rk law o rd ina rily w ou ld gove rn any p riv ilege issues . See Fed . R .

Ev id . 501 ; In re A pp lica tion o f Am . Tobacco C o ., 880 F .2d 1520 , 1527 (2d C ir . 1989 ).

H IPAA , how eve r, p reemp ts “any con tra ry p rov is ion s o f s ta te law . 42 U .S .C . § 1320d –

4

7 (a ). U nde r H IPAA , hea lth ca re p rov ide rs a re requ ired to p ro tec t the con f iden tia lity o f a

pa t ien t’s hea l th info rma t ion . N a t’ l A bo r tion Fed ’n v . A shcro f t , N o . 03 C iv . 8695 (RCC ) ,

2004 W L 555701 , a t *3 (S .D .N .Y . M a r. 19 , 2004 ) . The regu la tion s p rom u lga ted pu rsuan t

to H IPAA de f ine “ [p ]ro tec ted hea lth in fo rm a tion” as “ ind iv idua lly iden tifiab le h ea lth

in fo rm a tion . . . [ t]ran sm itted by e lec tron ic med ia ; [m ]a in ta ined in e lec tron ic med ia ; o r

[ t]ran sm itted o r m a in ta ined in any o the r fo rm o r m ed ium .” 45 C .F .R . § 160 .103 .

H IPAA ’s p reemp tion p rov is ion con ta in s an excep tion app licab le w hen a

s ta te ha s a law concern ing ind iv idua lly iden tif iab le hea lth in fo rm a tion m o re stringen t than

H IPAA ’s ow n requ irem en ts . EEOC v . B o s ton M k t. C o rp ., N o . 03 -CV -3227 (LDW )

(WDW ) 2004 W L 3327264 , a t *3 (E .D .N .Y . D ec . 16 , 2004 ); C ren shaw v . MONY L ife

In s . C o ., 318 F . Supp . 2d 1015 , 1028 (S .D . C a l. 2004 ); L aw v . Zucke rm an , 307 F . Supp .

2d 705 , 708 -09 (D . M d . 2004 ) . U nde r Sec tion 264 (c )(2 ) o f H IPAA , a “ sta te p rivacy

s tanda rd is m o re stringen t than a H IPAA requ iremen t if the sta te law ‘p roh ib its o r

restric ts a u se o r d isc losu re in c ircum stances [unde r] w h ich su ch u se o r d isc losu re w ou ld

o the rw ise be perm itted ’ unde r H IPAA .” Bo s ton M k t. C o rp ., 2004 W L 3327264 , a t *3

(quo ting N a t’ l A bo rt ion Fed ’n , 2004 W L 555701 , a t *3 ) (a lte ra tion in o rig ina l) .

H IPAA pe rm its the d isc losu re o f “p ro tec ted hea lth in fo rm a tion” w ithou t a

pa tien t’s con sen t in a va rie ty o f c ircum stances. Fo r exam p le, p ro tec ted hea lth

in fo rm a tion m ay be d isc lo sed in re spon se to a cou rt o rde r, “p rov ided tha t the covered

en tity d isc lo se s on ly the p ro tec ted hea lth in fo rm a tion exp re ss ly au tho rized by such o rde r.”

5

 45 C .F .R . § 164 .512 (e )(1 )(i) . A lte rna te ly, a hea lth ca re p rov ide r m ay d isc lo se such

in fo rm a tion “ in re spon se to a subpoena o r d iscove ry reque st if the hea lth ca re p rov ide r

rece ive s adequa te a ssu rance tha t the ind iv idua l w ho se reco rd s a re reque sted ha s been

g iven su f f ic ien t no tice o f the reque st, o r if rea sonab le e ffo rts have been made to secu re a

p ro tec tive o rd e r.” N a t’ l A bo rt ion Fed ’n , 2004 W L 555701 , a t *2 .

B y compa r ison , unde r N ew Y o rk law , “a person au tho rized to p rac tice

m ed ic ine” is p roh ib ited f rom d isc lo s ing “any in fo rm a tion w h ich he acqu ired in a ttend ing

a pa tien t in a p ro fe ss iona l capac ity, and w h ich w a s necessa ry to enab le h im to ac t in tha t

capac ity,” “ [u ]n le ss the pa tien t w a ive s the p riv ilege .” N .Y . C .P .L .R . § 4504 (a )

(M cK inney 2005 ) (“CPLR 4504 (a )” ) (empha s is added ). “B ecau se N ew Y o rk law
1

requ ires p a tien t con sen t be fo re d isc losu re and H IPAA p rov ides fo r ce rta in excep tion s to

tha t ru le , N ew Y o rk law is m o re stringen t. N a t’l A bo rtion Fed ’n , 2004 W L 555701 , a t

*3 . A cco rd ing ly, N ew Y o rk p riv ileg e law p lain ly gove rn s the p riv ileg e question s in th is

d ive rs ity ac tion .

Pa l’s m emo randum o f law in suppo rt o f he r m o tion to compe l doe s no t

d iscu ss in de ta il the sta tu te s and case law app licab le to the d isc lo su re o f con f iden tia l

m ed ica l in fo rm a t ion in th is ca se . Ins tead , Pa l s im p ly argues tha t the docum en ts are

This restriction also extends to “medical corporation[s] . . . and the patients to
1
whom they . . . render professional medical services.” Id. Moreover, although the privilege
belongs to the patient, it “may be asserted by the physician for the patient’s protection where the
patient has not waived his privilege.” In re Application to Quash a Subpoena Duces Tecum in
Grand Jury Proceedings, 56 N.Y.2d 348, 352 (1982).

6

re levan t becau se they w ill he lp p rove tha t he r comp la in ts w e re made in good fa ith . Pa l

a lso a rgue s tha t the iden tity o f the pa tien ts can be p ro tec ted “a t tria l” by re ferring to them

by p seudonym s . (D ock e t N o . 25 (“P l .’s M em .”) , a t 6 ) .

W ha t Pa l ove rlook s is tha t he r a tto rneys have a lready d isc lo sed the

iden titie s o f s ix NYU ba ria tric su rge ry pa tien ts to oppo s ing coun se l by se rv ing the

d ispu ted documen t reque sts . Pa l’s coun se l ha s a lso a ttached un redac ted cop ie s o f he r

d iscove ry requests and NYU ’s respon se s the re to to Pa l’s e lec tron ica lly-f iled pape rs in

suppo rt o f he r m o tion to com pe l. (See id .). A s a con sequence , the nam es o f the pa tien ts
2

a re now ava ilab le to v ir tua lly anyone w ith PACER access .

U nde r CPLR 4504 (a ), “d isc losu re o f the nam e and add ress o f a nonpa rty

pa tien t w ho m ay have been a w itne ss to an a lleged ac t o f neg ligence o r m a lp rac tice does

no t v io la te the pa tien t’s p riv ilege o f con f iden tia lity o f trea tm en t,” p rov ided tha t the

reque sting pa rty is no t seek ing to iden tify the pa tien t by re ference to the med ica l

trea tm en t he [o r she ] rece ived . . . and reve la tion o f the pa tien t’s loca tion in the ho sp ita l

does no t revea l the pa tien t’s m ed ica l s ta tu s .” R ab inow itz v . S t. John ’s Ep iscopa l H o sp .,

808 N .Y .S .2d 280 , 282 (2d D ep ’t 2005 ) (c ita tion s and in te rn a l quo ta tion m a rk s om itted ).

H ere , how ev er , it is p rec ise ly becau se the s ix nam ed pa t ien ts underw en t bar ia tr ic su rge ry

tha t P a l’s coun se l seek s the ir m ed ica l reco rd s . N ew Y o rk law is ab so lu te in tha t rega rd .

See , e .g ., G unn v . Sound Sho re M ed . C tr . o f W e stche ste r, 772 N .Y .S .2d 714 , 715 (2d

On May 1, 2007, I entered a separate order directing the Clerk of the Court to
2
place the relevant portion of that document under seal.

7

D ep ’t 2004 ) (“ [S ]ince d isc lo su re o f the pa tien ts’ name s w ill, in e f fec t, revea l tha t they

w e re unde rgo ing trea tm en t fo r ca rd iac -re la ted cond ition s , such d isc lo su re is p roh ib ited

unde r CPLR 4504 (a ).” ). A cco rd ing ly, in the ab sence o f a w a ive r – and he re the re ha s

been none – the se rv ice and f iling o f Pa l’s documen t reque sts is , by itse lf , a v io la tion o f

CPLR 4504 (a ). Pa l con sequen tly is no t en titled to the reco rd s she seek s, rega rd le ss o f

the ir re levance .

Pa l’s m o tion to compe l is the re fo re den ied to the ex ten t tha t she seek s the

d isc losu re o f spec if ic pa t ien ts’ med ica l reco rds .

2 .

O the r D iscove ry R equests

D ocumen t R eque st N o . 5 seek s the d isc lo su re o f any documen ts concern ing

comm un ica tion s b e tw een NYU and the o the r app lican ts fo r the fe llow sh ip aw a rded to

Pa l. In D ocumen t R eque st N o . 6 and In te rroga to ry N o . 4 , Pa l seek s in fo rm a tion

con ce rn ing app lican ts fo r the fe llow sh ip fo r the fo llow ing yea r . NYU ob jec ts to these

requests on the g round tha t any ev idence rega rd ing o the r app lican ts tha t Pa l sough t to

in troduce in to ev idence a t tria l to co rrobo ra te he r c la im tha t R en and F ie ld ing

m isrep re sen ted the lapa ro scop ic p rac tice a t NYU w ou ld con stitu te charac te r ev idence , the

adm iss ion o f w h ich is p rec luded by Fede ra l Ru le o f Ev idence 404 (b ). In advanc ing th is

a rgum en t, NYU fa ils to tak e no te o f the num e rou s excep tion s to tha t ru le, w h ich pe rm it

s im ila r ac t ev idence to be u sed to es tab lish , in te r a lia , m o tive o r ab sence o f m is take .

M o reove r, a s Pa l co rrec tly ob se rve s , the standa rd fo r p re tria l d isc lo su re d if fers f rom tha t

8

gove rn ing the adm iss ib ility o f ev idence a t tria l. See Fed . R . C iv . P . 26 (b )(1 ) (“ [R ]e levan t

info rm a t ion need no t be adm iss ib le a t the tr ia l if the info rm a t ion sough t app ea rs

rea sonab ly ca lcu la ted to lead to the d iscove ry o f adm iss ib le ev idence .” ). Pa l

con sequen tly is en titled to the d iscove ry she seek s concern ing NYU ’s comm un ica tion s

w ith o the r app lican ts fo r lapa ro scop ic fe llow sh ip s du ring the na rrow tim e pe riod s fo r

w h ich she seek s th is in fo rm a tion .

In D ocumen t R eque st N o . 8 , Pa l seek s s ta tis tica l da ta conce rn ing the type s

o f su rge rie s tha t R en and F ie ld ing pe rfo rm ed du ring the lim ited pe riod o f tim e tha t she

w a s emp loyed a s a fe llow a t NYU . NYU con tend s tha t it doe s no t m a in ta in any

docum en ts tha t com p ile th is in fo rm a tion and tha t any a ttem p t to recon stru c t it now w ou ld

be undu ly bu rden som e . NYU fu rthe r ob jec ts tha t the su rge rie s tha t R en and F ie ld ing

ac tua lly pe rfo rm ed w h ile Pa l w a s a fe llow shed no ligh t on the tru th o f the sta temen ts tha t

they m ade nea rly one yea r ea rl ie r w hen they in te rv iew ed Pa l.

Pa l’s re jo inde r is tha t NYU ind ica ted in re spon se to D ocumen t R eque st N o .

7 tha t it had no such reco rd s fo r ca lenda r yea r 2004 -05 , bu t fa iled to m ake a s im ila r

rep re sen ta tion in re spon se to D ocumen t R eque st N o . 8 , w h ich reque sted a sim ila r

summ a ry fo r the fo llow ing yea r. (D ocke t N o . 36 (“P l.’s R ep ly M em .” ) a t 2 -3 ) . Pa l

a rgue s tha t NYU ’s re spon se to D ocumen t R eque st N o . 8 con sequen tly w a s lim ited to a

c la im o f p r iv i leg e under H IPAA . (Id .). N one the less , if there are no summ ary

“documen ts w h ich se t fo rth the numbe rs o f d if feren t type s o f su rg ica l p rocedu re s

9

perfo rm ed by [R en and F ie ld ing ] from Sep tember 1 , 2005 un t il January 25 , 2006 ,” the re

is no th ing fo r NYU to p roduce . A dd itiona lly, becau se the types o f su rge ries tha t NYU

pe rfo rm ed long a f te r R en and F ie ld ing in te rv iew ed Pa l a re , a t be st, o f m a rg ina l re levance ,

i t p la in ly w ou ld be undu ly bu rden som e fo r NYU to hav e to c rea te the reques ted summ ary

now . Th is aspec t o f Pa l’s m o tion to com pe l is the re fo re den ied .

In In te rroga to ry N o s . 10 th rough 15 , Pa l seek s the iden tif ica tion o f pe rson s

hav ing know ledge o f the med ica l trea tm en t o f the six pa tien ts fo r w hom Pa l reque sted the

p roduc tion o f m ed ica l reco rd s . P resum ab ly th is reques t seek s in fo rm a tion abou t the NYU

pe rsonne l w ho trea ted the pa t ien ts. The m e re d isc losu re o f the iden tities o f these

ind iv idua ls does no t appea r to con travene e ithe r H IPAA o r N ew Y o rk law . A cco rd ing ly,

Pa l is en titled to th is in fo rm a tion .

In In te rroga to ry N o . 16 , a sk s NYU to iden tify the pa tien ts w hom Pa l

te lephoned on Janua ry 21 , 2006 . If NYU w e re to an sw e r th is in te rroga to ry, w h ich seek s

in fo rm a tion tha t Pa l he rse lf p re sum ab ly know s , it necessa rily w ou ld have to d isc lo se (o r

con f irm ) the n am es o f p a t ien ts w ho had bar ia tric su rge ry a t its ho sp i ta l . A s no ted ear l ier ,

CPLR 4504 (a ) ba rs NYU f rom do ing so in the ab sence o f a pa tien t w a ive r. The m o tion to

com pe l a respon se to In ter roga to ry N o . 16 is con sequen tly den ied . (O f cou rse , shou ld

NYU w ish to ca ll any o f the se pa tien ts a s w itne sse s , it w ill have to iden tify them so tha t

Pa l m ay depo se them .)

In D ocumen t R eque st N o s . 17 and 18 , Pa l seek s documen ta tion concern ing

10

the c reden t ia ls and l icen s ing o f tw o fe l low s w ho p reced ed Pa l in the lap aro scop ic su rge ry

p rog ram . Pa l con tend s tha t th is in fo rm a tion is re levan t becau se she comp la ined abou t the

un licen sed s ta tu s o f these phys ic ian s p rio r to he r te rm ina tion . (P l.’s M em . a t 6 ) . NYU

ha s ob jec ted to the se reque sts on seve ra l g round s , inc lud ing a c la im o f p riv ilege under

Sec tion s 2805 – j and 2805 -k the N ew Y o rk Pub lic H ea lth L aw (“PHL ” ) . The f i rs t o f these

s ta tu tes requ ires a ho sp ita l to m a in ta in a p rog ram o f qua l ity rev iew ; the second requ ires a

ho sp ita l to rev iew a doc to r’s p rio r h is to ry in dec id ing w he the r to g ran t the doc to r

p ro fe ss iona l p riv ilege s a t its fac ilitie s . A dd itiona lly, PH L § 2805 -m p rov ide s tha t the

in fo rm a tion co llec ted pu rsuan t to bo th s ta tu te s sha ll no t be re lea sed o the r than to the N ew

Y o rk S ta te D epa rtm en t o f H ea lth o r ano the r ho sp ita l con side ring the emp loym en t o f , o r

g ran ting o f p riv ileges to , a doc to r.

In h er m o t ion pap ers , Pa l add resse s on ly the p r iv i leg e p er ta in ing to NYU ’s

c reden tia ling inve stiga tion , con tend ing tha t “ [a]ny sub sequen t documen ts con f irm ing tha t

these tw o physic ian s w e re no t p rope rly licen sed w ou ld no t be p riv ileg ed .” (P l.’s R ep ly

M em . a t 4 ) . P re sum ab ly, how eve r, NYU ’s d iscove ry tha t tw o o f its phys ic ian s w e re no t

p rope rly licen sed w ou ld fa ll squa re ly w ith in the type o f period ic a ssu rance and med ica l

m a lp rac tice rev iew tha t PHL § 2805 -j insu late s f rom d iscove ry. Pa l’s app lica tion to

com pe l a respon se to her d iscovery reques ts conce rn ing her tw o p redecesso rs is the refo re

den ied . N one the le ss , NYU is d irec ted to p rov ide a p riv ilege log w ith re spec t to any

do cum en ts w ithh e ld on p r iv i lege g round s w h ich a re respons ive to these reques ts .

11

In D ocumen t R eque st N o . 24 , Pa l seek s “ [a]ll comm un ica tion s be tw een

[he r] and D r. C a ro le B e rn ste in .” In D ocum en t R equest N o . 25 , Pa l seek s “ [a ]ll

comm un ica tion s among o r be tw een NYU ’s emp loyee s concern ing [he r] , inc lud ing bu t no t

lim ited to comm un ica tion s concern ing [he r] be tw een D rs . R en , F ie ld ing , B e rn s te in and

R i les .” In D ocum en t R eques t N o . 26 , Pa l seek s “[a] l l comm un ica t ion s conce rn ing [h er]

be tw een NYU ’s emp loyee s, inc lud ing bu t no t lim ited to D r . R ile s and emp loyee s o f the

U n ive rs ity o f M ed ic ine and D en tis try o f N ew Je rsey [w he re she comp le ted a su rg ica l

residency] .” NYU sta tes tha t it has p roduced the docum en ts re spon sive to these requests

to the ex ten t tha t they re la te to Pa l’s c la im s . To the ex ten t tha t Pa l seek s add itiona l

docum en ts he r reques ts c lea r ly are overb road . Fo r tha t reason , NYU ’s ob jec t ion s are

su s ta ined , and Pa l’s m o tion to compe l fu rthe r re spon se s to the se reque sts is den ied .

B .

NYU M o tion fo r a P ro tec tive O rde r

NYU seek s an o rde r p reven ting Pa l f rom con tac ting any pa tien ts o f R en o r

F ie ld ing o r “NYU in gene ra l.” (D ocke t N o . 22 (“D e f .’s M em .” ), a t 1 ) . R u le 26 (c ) o f the

Fede ra l R u le s o f C iv il P rocedu re au tho rize s a d is tric t cou rt to “ ‘m ake any o rde r w h ich

ju s tice requ ire s to p ro tec t a pa rty o r pe rson f rom annoyance , emba rra ssm en t, opp re ss ion ,

o r undue bu rden o r expen se ’ upon a show ing by a movan t fo r the o rde r o f good cau se .”

G amba le v . D eu tsche Bank AG , 377 F .3d 133 , 142 (2d C ir . 2004 ) (quo ting Fed . R . C iv .

P . 26 (c )); Th row e r v . Pozz i, N o . 99 C iv . 5871 (GBD ), 2002 WL 91612 , a t *7 (S .D .N .Y .

Jan . 24 , 2002 ). A pa rty estab lishes good cau se w hen it “show s tha t d isc losu re w ill resu lt

12

in a c lea rly de f ined , spec if ic and se riou s in ju ry.” Conopco , Inc . v . W e in , N o . 05 C iv .

9899 (RCC )(THK ), 2007 W L 1040676 , a t *2 (S .D .N .Y . A p r. 4 , 2007 ) (c ita tion om itted ).

O n the o the r hand , “ [b ]road a llega tion s o f ha rm , un sub s tan tia ted by spec if ic exam p le s o f

a rt icu la ted reason ing , do no t sa tis fy the R u le 26 (c ) tes t.” Id .

NYU a rgue s tha t Pa l’s con tinu ing con tac t w ith its pa tien ts v io la te s the

physic ian -pa tien t p riv ileg e and H IPAA . (See D e f .’s M em . at 3 -4 ). In suppo rt o f its

app lica tion , NYU has subm itted a sw o rn a f f idav it in w h ich F ield ing sta tes tha t one o f h is

pa tien ts con tac ted h im on the n igh t o f Feb rua ry 21 , 2007 , and in fo rm ed h im tha t he w a s

“bew ilde red and up se t” by a recen t phone ca ll f rom Pa l. (See D ocke t N o . 35 (A f f . o f

G eo rge F ie ld ing , M .D ., sw o rn to M a r. 29 , 2007 ) ¶¶ 2 -3 ) . F ie ld ing s ta te s fu rthe r tha t the

pa t ien t to ld h im tha t he “d id no t w an t to ge t invo lved w i th any lega l ma t ters be tw een D r .

Pa l and NYU .” (Id . ¶ 4 ). D u ring th is conve rsa tion , the pa tien t also a lleg ed ly to ld

F ie ld ing tha t Pa l had “spoken w i th h is fa the r in trying to reach h im .” (Id . ¶ 5 ) . Pa l’s

coun se l, Ja son L . So lo ta ro f f , E sq ., a f f irm s , how eve r, tha t he sub sequen tly te lephoned the

on ly pa tien t tha t Pa l had con tac ted , and tha t the pa tien t “den ied sta ting concern abou t the

ca ll f rom D r . Pa l o r reque sting tha t NYU p reven t D r . Pa l f rom ca lling h im aga in .”

(D ock e t N o . 28 (A ff irm . o f Ja son L . So lo tarof f , E sq ., in O pp . to D ef .’s M o t . fo r a

P ro tec tive O rd e r, d a ted M a r. 26 , 2007 ) a t 2 ).

Pa l advance s e ssen tia lly tw o ju s tif ica tion s fo r he r ac tion s . F irs t, Pa l

sugge sts tha t she can p rove the good fa ith e lemen t o f he r w h is tleb low e r c la im by ca lling

the “pa tien ts a s w itne sse s to te stify tha t they rece ived im p rope r pa tien t ca re .” (D ocke t

13

N o . 28 (P l .’s O pp .) , a t 3 ) . Second , Pa l a llude s to “ the im po rtan t pub lic in te re sts se rved by

w h is tleb low e r ca se s like th is one .” (Id . a t 4 ) . N one the le ss , even if Pa l is co rrec t tha t the

s ix pa t ien ts cou ld bo ls ter her c la im tha t NYU ’s lap aro scop ic m ed ica l procedu res w ere

de f ic ien t, a pa tien t’s righ t to con f iden tia lity is no le ss in the pub lic in te re st than the

expo su re o f m ed ica l m a lp rac tice .

The pub lica tion on the In te rne t o f the name s o f NYU pa tien ts w ho have had

ba ria tric su rge ry, ev en if inadve rten t (as appea rs to be the case ), ra ise s a leg itim a te

conce rn tha t the ir ex ten sive p rivacy righ ts unde r N ew Y o rk law w ill no t be su f f icien tly

hono red if the de ta ils o f the ir m ed ica l trea tm en t a re d isc lo sed to Pa l and he r coun se l. O n

the o ther h and , i t m ay be po ss ib le to c raf t procedu res fo r seek ing a w a ive r w h ich a ffo rd

the pa tien ts an oppo rtun ity to speak w ith Pa l o r h e r coun se l if they w ish to do so .

A cco rd ing ly, the C ou rt w ill conduc t a con fe rence on M ay 16 , 2007 , at 5 p .m ., in

C ou r troom 20A , 500 Pea r l S tree t , N ew Y o rk , N ew Y o rk , to en ter ta in coun se l’s

sugge stion s in th is rega rd . In the in te rim , how eve r, Pa l and he r coun se l a re in s truc ted no t

to have any fu rthe r con tac t w ith any pa tien ts o f the NYU lapa ro scopy p rac tice .

IV .

C onc lu s ion

A s se t fo rth above , Pa l’s m o tion to com pe l (D ocke t N o . 24 ) is g ran ted in

pa rt and den ied in pa rt. NYU is fu rthe r d irec ted to p rov ide any fu rthe r in fo rm a tion

requ ired by th is M em o randum D ec is ion and O rd e r w ith in tw o w eek s .

A dd itiona lly, NYU ’s m o tion fo r a p ro tec tive o rde r (D ocke t N o . 21 ) is

g ran ted , and Pa l and he r a tto rneys a re d irec ted no t to in itia te any fu rthe r con tac t w ith the

14