Pal v. New York 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.

M EMORANDUM
:
DEC IS ION AND ORDER

06 C iv . 5892 (PAC )(FM )
:

———————————————————-x

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

I .

In troduc tion

Th is is a w h is tleb low e r ac tion b rough t by p la in tif f N ee lu Pa l (“Pa l” ), w ho

con tend s tha t the N ew Y o rk U n ivers i ty Schoo l of M ed ic ine (“SOM ”) , sued as N ew Y o rk

U n ive rs ity (“NYU ” ), w rong fu lly te rm ina ted he r in re ta lia tion fo r he r comp la in ts abou t

sub s tanda rd cond ition s and pa tien t ca re . (S ee C om p l. ¶¶ 1 , 32 -34 ).
1

Pa l ha s m oved fo r an o rde r compe lling NYU to p roduce ma te ria ls re la ting

to an inve stiga tion , conduc ted pu rsuan t to the SOM Eva lua tion , C o rrec tive A c tion , and

D isc ip l inary Po l icy fo r R es iden ts (“D isc ip l inary Po l icy” o r “Po l icy”) , w h ich led to P a l’s

te rm ina tion f rom he r fe llow sh ip po s ition a t NYU . She a lso seek s an o rde r compe lling

On August 22, 2007, Judge Crotty, to whom this case is assigned, dismissed Pal’s
1
claim that NYU induced her to accept a post-residency fellowship through fraudulent
misrepresentations. (Docket No. 45).

NYU to p rov ide fu rther re spon se s to o the r d iscove ry requests . Pa l’s m o tion to com pe l is

g ran ted to the ex ten t se t fo rth be low .

II .

B ackg round

A .

R e lev an t Fac ts

The re levan t fac ts w e re de sc ribed in m y p rio r M emo randum D ec is ion and

O rde r. See Pa l v . N .Y . U n iv ., N o . 06 C iv . 5892 , 2007 W L 1522618 (S .D .N .Y . M ay 22 ,

2007 ) . A cco rd ing ly, the fac ts a re se t fo rth he re in on ly to the ex ten t tha t they rep resen t a

change in Pa l’s po s ition o r a re nece ssa ry to re so lve he r m o tion .

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 . (C om p l. ¶ 6 ). She sub sequen tly w a s accep ted

fo r a fe llow sh ip in lapa ro scop ic p rac tice a t the SOM w h ich began in O c tobe r 2005 . (Id .

¶ 13 ). Pa l’s fe llow sh ip supe rv iso rs w e re D rs . C h ris tine R en (“R en” ) and G eo rge F ie ld ing

(“F ie ld ing”) .

Sho r tly a f te r she began w o rk ing a t NYU , Pa l a lleged ly becam e conce rned

abou t the ca re and trea tm en t o f som e o f the pa tien ts aw a iting su rg e ry. (Id . ¶ 15 ).

Spec if ica lly, she conc luded tha t R en and F ield ing w e re no t tak ing the tim e necessa ry to

unde rs tand the med ica l h is to rie s o f the ir pa tien ts , ob ta in the pa tien ts’ in fo rm ed con sen t

be fo re su rge ry, and en su re p rope r po s t-ope ra tive care . (Id . ¶¶ 16 -17 ) . A lthough she

vo iced these conce rns to R en and F ie ld ing , no ch anges w ere m ad e . (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; ano the r

su f fered seve re po st-ope ra tive com p lica tion s. (Id . ¶¶ 20 -21 ). H av ing g row n inc reasing ly

w o rried abou t the w e lfa re o f Ren ’s and F ie ld ing ’s pa tien ts , on o r abou t Janua ry 21 , 2006 ,

Pa l p laced anonym ou s te lephone ca lls to the pa tien ts w ho w e re schedu led fo r su rge ry the

fo llow ing day. (Id . ¶ 22 ; A f f irm . o f Ja son L . So lo taro f f , E sq ., in Supp . o f P l.’s M o t. to

C om pe l D isc ., da ted Sep t. 12 , 2007 (“So lo ta ro f f A f f irm .” ), E x . A . (“R en D ep .” ) a t 159 ).

D u ring the se ca lls , Pa l “w a rn [ed ] them o f the risk s o f the su rge ry,” “ in fo rm [ed ] them tha t

the re had been a recen t dea th ,” and “encou raged the [m ] to reque st add itiona l in fo rm a tion”

f rom R en , F ie ld ing , and NYU . (C om p l. ¶ 22 ).

O n January 24 , 2006 , Pa l m e t w i th D r . C aro l B erns 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 R en and

F ie ld ing w e re p rov id ing inadequa te se rv ice s. Pa l a lso d isc lo sed tha t she had made the

ca lls to the pa tien ts . (So lo ta ro f f A f f irm . Ex . D (“Pa l D ep .” ) a t 212 ) . L a te r tha t day, Pa l

summ a rized her concern s abou t R en and F ie ld ing in an ema il w h ich B e rn s te in fo rw a rded

to the depa rtm en t ch a ir, D r. Thom as R iles (“R iles” ). R iles , in tu rn , show ed the em a il to

R en , w ho show ed it to F ie ld ing . (S ee R en D ep . a t 180 -82 ; So lo ta ro f f A f f irm . Ex . C ).

The fo l low ing day, NYU su spended Pa l “ in acco rdance w i th” NYU ’s

D isc ip l inary Po l icy, fo r “ac t ion s [ tha t] m ay hav e con s t itu ted . . . a threa t to the w e lfa re

and safe ty o f p a t ien ts .” (So lo tarof f A ff irm . Ex s . G (suspen s ion le tter) , K (D isc ip l inary

Po l icy)) . The sp ec if ic ac t ion s c i ted in the le tter , w h ich w as s igned by R i les and R en , w ere

he r anonym ou s “phone ca lls to pa tien ts” and her “a ttemp t to sca re [ them ] in to cance ling

the ir trea tmen t .” (So lo tarof f A ff irm . Ex . G ) .

Fo llow ing Pa l’s su spen sion , F ie ld ing sen t an ema il to D r . M ax Cohen

(“C ohen” ), w ho appa ren tly w as the C h ie f M ed ica l O f f ice r o f the T isch H o sp ita l a t NYU .

(S ee R en D ep . at 172 ; So lo taro f f A f f irm . Ex . F (“B e rn ste in D ep .”) a t 15 ). In tha t em a il ,

F ie ld ing ind ica ted tha t he w a s w illing to w o rk w ith Pa l upon the exp ira tion o f he r

su spen sion , p rov ided tha t she “g [o ]t rid o f the law ye rs” rep re sen ting he r. (So lo ta ro f f

A f f irm . Ex . B a t 4 ) . O n ly a few days la te r, on Feb rua ry 9 , 2006 , F ie ld ing sen t C ohen an

ema il re sc ind ing h is o f fer to he lp Pa l th rough he r fe llow sh ip . (Id . Ex . C ) . In h is second

em a il, F ie ld ing exp ressed a des ire to “ repo rt Pa l to the s ta te fo r [a ] po ss ib le H IPAA

v io la tion” a ris ing ou t o f he r te lephone ca lls to pa tien ts . (Id . a t 2 ) . Th is ema il ha s been

p roduced to Pa l in redac ted fo rm .

D u ring Pa l’s fou r-w eek su spen sion , NYU conduc ted an in te rna l

inves tiga tion w h ich a lleged ly es tab lished he r “pa tte rn o f unp ro fess iona l behav io r .” O n

Feb rua ry 21 , 2006 , she w a s d ism issed f rom her fe llow sh ip p rog ram . (So lo ta ro f f A f f irm .

Ex . H (d ism issa l le tte r) a t 1 ; C om p l. ¶¶ 23 -24 ) . The rea son s c ited by R ile s in h is le tte r

in fo rm ing Pa l o f he r te rm ina tion inc luded he r anonym ou s te lephone ca lls , o the r in s tances

o f unp ro fe ss iona l behav io r a t a p rio r re sidency p rog ram , and inapp rop ria te hand ling o f

F ie ld ing ’s pa tien t’s dea th . (So lo ta ro f f A f f irm . Ex . H a t 1 ) . R ile s’ le tte r m ade no men tion

o f Pa l’s comp la in ts rega rd ing the sub s tanda rd leve l o f pa tien t ca re a lleged ly p rov ided by

R en and F ie ld ing . (See id .).

Pu rsuan t to the D isc ip lina ry Po licy appea ls p rocedu re s , Pa l sough t to have

he r d ism issa l rev iew ed by an SOM A ppea ls C omm ittee (“A ppea ls C omm ittee”)

con sis ting o f tw o SOM p ro fe sso rs and tw o re siden ts . (B e rn s te in D ep . a t 95 ) . The

A ppea ls C omm ittee rev iew ed the re levan t documen ts and in te rv iew ed B e rn s te in ,

F ie ld ing , Pa l, R en , R ile s , and o the r w itne sse s . (So lo ta ro f f A f f irm . Ex . I a t 1 ) . O n M ay

30 , 2006 , the A ppea ls C omm ittee recomm ended to R icha rd L ev in , NYU ’s D ean fo r

G radua te M ed ica l E duca tion , tha t P a l’s su spen s ion and te rm ina tion be uphe ld . (Id . a t 8 ).

The A ppea ls Comm i ttee’s “R epo r t R eg ard ing N ee lu P a l , M .D . A ppea l of Summ ary

Su spen s ion and Te rm ina tion” (“R epo rt” ) w a s m a rked “P riv ileged and C on f iden tia l,” bu t

a copy w a s neve rthe le ss p rov ided to Pa l. (Id .) . In tha t R epo rt, the A ppea ls C omm ittee

de sc ribed each o f its in te rv iew s and iden tif ied each documen t tha t it rev iew ed . (Id . a t 1 –

8 ) . The R epo rt conc luded tha t w h ile Pa l had m ade com p la in ts abou t pa tien t ca re a t NYU

and “genu ine ly fe lt conce rn ” fo r the ba ria tr ic su rg e ry pa tien ts , th is d id no t “ ju s tif [y] . . .

d irec tly con tac ting” pa tien ts be fo re exhau s ting o the r “ reasonab le a lte rn a tives .” (Id . a t 7 ).

The A ppea ls Comm i ttee the refo re unan imou s ly recomm ended tha t Pa l’s summ ary

su spen s ion and te rm ina tion be uphe ld . (Id . a t 8 ).

Pa l f iled th is ac tion on A ugu s t 4 , 2006 . H e r so le rema in ing c la im is tha t she

w a s the v ic tim o f a re ta lia to ry d ischa rge , in v io la tion o f N ew Y o rk ’s emp loyee

w h is tleb low e r s ta tu te , Sec tion 741 o f the N ew Y o rk L abo r L aw (“Sec tion 741” ). Pa l

con tend s tha t NYU ’s s tated reason s fo r he r d ism issa l are p re tex tua l and tha t she ac tua lly

w as d ism issed fo r com p la in ing abou t the sub s tanda rd cond ition s and pa tien t ca re a t NYU .

(C om p l . ¶¶ 32 -34 ) .

III .

D iscu ss ion

A .

Pa l’s M o tion to C om pe l Ev idence
R e la ted to the D isc ip lina ry P rocedu re s

NYU ha s dec lined to p roduce the tape reco rd ing s and tran sc rip ts o f the

in terv iew s conduc ted by the A ppea ls Comm i ttee pu rsuan t to the D isc ip l inary Po l icy. I t

fu rthe r ha s d irec ted B e rn s te in , R en , and R ile s no t to an sw e r depo sition que stion s abou t

w ha t w a s d isc lo sed in its “de libe ra tive p roce ss .” (D e f .’s M em . a t 5 ) . NYU a sse rts tha t

th is in fo rm a tion is p riv ileged under Sec tion 2805 -m o f the N ew Y o rk Pub lic H ea lth L aw

(“Sec tion 2805 -m ” o r the “Pub lic H ea lth L aw p riv ilege”) and Sec tion 6527 o f the N ew

Y o rk Educa tion L aw (“Sec tion 6527” o r the “Educa tion L aw p riv ilege” ).

1 .

N ew Y o rk P r iv ilege Law G ove rn s

U nd e r Fede ra l R u le o f Ev idence 501 , “ in c iv il ac tion s and p roceed ings ,

w ith re spec t to an e lemen t o f a c la im o r de fen se a s to w h ich S ta te law supp lie s the ru le o f

dec is ion , the p riv ilege o f a w itne ss . . . sha ll be de te rm ined in acco rdance w ith S ta te law .”

The pa rties ag ree tha t N ew Y o rk p riv ileg e law the re fo re app lies in th is d ive rsity su it,

w h ich a rise s unde r N ew Y o rk law and conce rn s even ts tha t occu rred in N ew Y o rk . See

K laxon Co . v . S ten to r E lec . M fg . C o ., 313 U .S . 487 (1941 ); T a rtag lia v . Pau l R eve re L ife

In s . C o ., 948 F . Supp . 325 , 326 (S .D .N .Y . 1996 ).

2 .

Pub lic H ea lth L aw P r iv ilege

U nde r Sec tion 2805 -m , “none o f the reco rd s , documen ta tion o r comm ittee

ac tion s o r reco rd s requ ired pu rsu an t to sec tion s [2805 -j and 2805 -k o r] the repo rts

requ ired pu rsu an t to sec tion [2805 -l] sh a ll be sub jec t to d isc losu re .” N .Y . Pub . H ea lth
2

L aw § 2805 -m (2 ) (M cK inney 2002 ) . Sec tion 2805 -j requ ire s ho sp ita ls to in s titu te a

m a lp rac tice p reven tion p rog ram supe rv ised by a qua lity assu rance comm ittee and to

co llec t and ma in ta in in fo rm a tion concern ing nega tive trea tm en t hea lth ca re ou tcome s and

inc iden ts o f in ju ry to p a tien ts. Id . § 2805 – j. Sec tion 2805 -k requ ires ho sp ita ls to es tab l ish

p rocedu re s fo r the pe riod ic rev iew o f c lin ica l p riv ilege s g ran ted to phys ic ian s . Id .

§ 2805 -k . Sec tion 2805 -l requ ire s ho sp ita ls to repo rt to the N ew Y o rk D epa rtm en t o f

H ea l th ce r ta in types o f “ inc iden ts ,” inc lud ing “p a t ien ts’ dea ths .” Id . § 2805 – l(1) , (2 )(a) .

The Pub lic H ea lth L aw p riv ilege w a s enac ted a s pa rt o f a com p rehen sive

re fo rm o f N ew Y o rk ’s m ed ica l m a lp rac tice law s . T a rtag lia , 948 F . Supp . a t 328 (c iting

W h ite v . N .Y .C . H ea lth & H o sp s . C o rp ., N o . 88 C iv . 7536 , 1990 WL 33747 , a t *10

(S .D .N .Y . M a r. 19 , 1990 )); Logue v . V e lez , 92 N .Y .2d 13 , 17 (1998 ) . The leg is la tion

sough t to reduce the inc idence o f m ed ica l m a lp rac tice by requ iring tha t “phys ic ian s

Section 2805-m applies only to a hospital, which is defined as a “facility or
2
institution engaged principally in providing services . . . for the prevention, diagnosis or
treatment of human disease, pain, injury, . . . or physical condition.” N.Y. Pub. Health Law
§ 2801.

re spon s ib le fo r ac ts o f p ro fe ss iona l m isconduc t . . . be sub jec t to e f fec tive d isc ip line .”

T a rtag lia, 948 F . Supp . at 328 (quo ting M ed . & D en tal M a lp rac tice & P ro f ’l C onduc t ,

1986 N .Y . L aw s , ch . 266 , § 1 ) . The leg is la ture be l iev ed tha t th is , in turn , “w ou ld en su re

the con tinued adequacy o f m ed ica l m a lp rac tice in su rance fo r hea lth ca re p rov ide rs” and

the reby he lp en su re tha t necessa ry m ed ica l se rv ice s con tinued to be ava ilab le to the

pub lic . Id .

3 .

Educa tion L aw P r iv ilege

Sec tion 6527 o f the Educa tion L aw is s im ila r to Sec tion 2805 -m . See

T a rtag lia , 948 F . Supp . a t 328 (add re ss ing bo th s ta tu te s “concu rren tly” ); Logue , 92

N .Y .2d a t 17 (no t ing tha t the tw o law s em body the “ sam e po l icy”and to a “ large m ea su re

dup lica te [ ]” one ano the r) . Sec tion 6527 thu s p ro tec ts f rom d isc lo su re the p roceed ing s

and reco rd s “ re la ting to pe rfo rm ance o f a med ica l o r a qua lity a ssu rance rev iew func tion

o r pa r tic ipa t ion in a m ed ica l . . . m a lprac t ice p reven t ion p rog ram ,” a s w e l l as “any repo r t

requ ired by” Sec tion 2805 -l o f the Pub lic H ea lth L aw . N .Y . Educ . L aw . § 6527 (3 ).

Sec t ion 6527 is broad er than Sec t ion 2805 -m , how ev er , becau se i t app l ies to the en t ire

m ed ica l p ro fe ss ion , no t ju s t ho sp ita ls . See W illiam s v . B rookhaven M em . H o sp . M ed .

C tr., Inc ., N o . 03 -6201 , 2006 W L 2559527 , a t *1 (N .Y . Sup . C t . Ju ly 26 , 2006 ) .

The pu rpo se o f the b road nond isc losu re p rov ision s o f Sec tion 6527 is to

encou rage f rank pee r rev iew o f physic ian s by gua ran tee ing con f iden tiality to pa rticipan ts

in the p roce ss . T a rtag lia , 948 F . Supp . a t 328 ; Logue , 92 N .Y .2d a t 17 (quo ting

leg is la tive h is to ry); see a lso K a the rine F . v . N ew Y o rk , 94 N .Y .2d 200 , 205 (1999 ) (the

“ th ru s t o f sec tion 6527 (3 ) is to p rom o te the qua lity o f care th rough se lf -rev iew w ithou t

fear o f lega l rep risa l” ). L ike Sec tion 2805 -m , one goa l o f Sec tion 6527 is to “ reduce the

inc idence o f m ed ica l m a lp rac tice in N ew Y o rk .” T a rtag lia , 948 F . Supp . a t 328 .

4 . W h ich P riv ilege A pp lies to NYU

Pa l con tend s tha t the Pub lic H ea lth L aw p riv ileg e is inapp licab le in th is

ca se becau se Pa l w a s emp loyed by the SOM , w h ich is no t a “ho sp ita l.” (P l .’s M em . a t

15 ). NYU coun te rs tha t P a l in fac t w as em p loyed by the NYU H o sp ita ls C en te r, a

s ta tu to ry “ho sp ita l” unde r the N ew Y o rk Pub lic H ea lth L aw . (D e f .’s M em . a t 7 ) . H e r

emp loym en t ag reemen t lend s som e suppo rt to bo th po s ition s becau se it is be tw een Pa l

and the SOM , bu t ind ica tes tha t Pa l w ill be on the payro ll o f e ithe r the NYU H o sp itals

C en ter or the B e l levue H o sp i ta ls C en ter . (D ec l . o f D iane K reb s , E sq ., in O pp ’n to P l .’s

M o t . to C om pe l D isc ., da ted O c t . 12 , 2007 , Ex . F a t 1) .

The C ou rt need no t reso lve th is fac tua l d ispu te to ru le on Pa l’s m o tion .

A ssum ing , arguendo , tha t Pa l w as em p loyed so lely by the SOM , Sec tion 6527 still w ou ld

app ly becau se the Educa tion L aw p riv ilege is no t lim ited to “ho sp ita ls .” In so fa r a s

re levan t he re , tha t p riv i lege is a t leas t as b road as the Pub lic H ea lth L aw p r iv i lege b ecause

bo th p riv ilege s p reven t the d isc lo su re o f any ev idence re la ted to (a ) m ed ica l m a lp rac tice

p reven tion p rog ram s , (b ) m ed ica l rev iew and qua lity a ssu rance p rog ram s , and (c ) inc iden t

repo rts requ ired by Sec tion 2805 -l o f the Pub lic H ea lth L aw . See N .Y . Pub . H ea lth L aw

§§ 2805 -j – 2805 -m ; N .Y . Educ . L aw § 6527 (3 ) . A cco rd ing ly, becau se bo th s ta tu te s

cove r sub s tan tia lly s im ila r g round and em body the “sam e po licy,” the C ou rt w ill assum e

fo r pu rpo se s o f th is m o tion tha t bo th p riv ilege s app ly to NYU . Logue , 92 N .Y .2d a t 17 ;

see Ta rtag lia , 948 F . Supp . a t 328 .

5 .

N e i ther P r iv i leg e A pp l ies to the D isc ip l inary
Po l icy in th is “W h istleb low e r” Em p loym en t C ase

A pa rty seek ing to avo id d isc lo su re unde r the Pub lic H ea lth and Educa tion

L aw p riv ilege s ha s the “bu rden o f es tab lish ing” tha t (a ) “ the in fo rm a tion sough t . . . w a s

p repa red in acco rdance” w ith the p riv ilege s, and (b ) “ the d isc lo su re o f such in fo rm a tion

w ou ld f ru s tra te the pu rpo se s unde rlying the p riv ilege s.” Ryan v . S ta ten Is land U n iv .

H o sp ., N o . 04 C iv . 2666 , 2006 W L 1025890 , a t *3 (E .D .N .Y . A p r . 13 , 2006 ) (c iting

Spec trum Sys . In t’l C o rp . v . C hem . B ank , 78 N .Y .2d 371 , 377 (1991 ) and M a rte v .

B rook lyn H o sp . C tr., 9 A .D .3d 41 , 46 (2d D ep ’t 2004 )). Fu rthe rm o re , becau se bo th

“p r iv i leges cons titu te excep t ion s to the gene ra l p r inc ip le tha t a ll re levan t ev idence m us t

be p roduced ,” they m u s t be “na rrow ly con s trued .” S tr in i v . Edw a rd s L ifesc iences C o rp .,

N o . 05 C iv . 440 , 2007 W L 1017280 , a t *2 (N .D .N .Y . M a r. 30 , 2007 ) . NYU a rguab ly ha s

fa iled to m ake the f irst requ ired show ing , bu t ev en if it has, it unquestionab ly has fa iled to

m ake the second nece ssa ry show ing .

The f irs t e lemen t tha t NYU m u s t e stab lish is tha t the in fo rm a tion sough t by

Pa l w as p repa red in acco rdance w ith S ec tion 2805 -m o r Sec t ion 6527 . Thu s , NYU m us t

demon s tra te tha t its D isc ip lina ry Po licy con stitu te s e ithe r a med ica l m a lp rac tice

p reven tion p rog ram o r a m ed ica l rev iew o r qua lity a ssu rance p rog ram . See N .Y . Pub .

H ea lth L aw §§ 2805 -j – 2805 -m ; N .Y . Educ . Law § 6527 (3 ). In an e f fo rt to m ee t th is

requ iremen t , NYU subm its the dec la ra tion o f Lynn Low y (“Low y” ), A ssoc ia te G ene ra l

C oun se l o f the NYU M ed ica l C en te r, w ho s ta te s tha t the D isc ip lina ry Po licy is a pa rt o f

NYU ’s qua lity assu rance p rog ram designed to “ imp rove the ove ra ll ca re p rov ided to

pa tien ts and to reduce the vo lum e o f ma lp rac tice litiga tion by eva lua ting and co rrec ting

the pe rfo rm ance o f re siden ts and fe llow s .” (D ec l. o f Lynn Low y, E sq ., da ted O c t. 12 ,

2007 , ¶ 8 ) .

The re is no ev idence tha t Low y he lped w rite the D isc ip lina ry Po licy o r w a s

emp loyed by NYU a t the tim e o f its c rea tion . Low y’s conc lu so ry a sse rtion s fu rthe r seem

to be con trad ic ted by the tex t o f the D isc ip lina ry Po licy, w h ich make s no m en tion o f

“qua lity a ssu rance” o r “ma lp rac tice p reven tion .” In s tead , the D isc ip lina ry Po licy s ta te s

s im p ly tha t its p rocedu re s a re “des igned to be fa ir to [ fe llow s] , pa tien ts unde r ca re , and

the tra in ing p rog ram .” (D isc ip lina ry Po licy a t 1 ) . A lthough a fe llow can be d isc ip lined

fo r ac t ion s tha t con s t itu te “m ed ica l m a lprac t ice” o r invo lve a r isk to pa t ien t care , these are

no t the on ly concern s tha t the D isc ip lina ry Po licy add re sse s . Thu s , fe llow s can a lso be

d isc ip lined fo r such sho rtcom ing s a s fa iling to (a ) pa rtic ipa te in the “educa tiona l and

scho la rly ac tiv itie s” o f NYU , (b ) teach o the r re siden ts , (c ) pa rtic ipa te in comm ittee s

w ho se ac tion s a f fec t the ir educa tion , (d ) pub lish o rig ina l re sea rch in pee r-rev iew ed

jou rna ls , o r (e) pub l ish o r pre sen t a t p rofess iona l soc ie ty m ee t ing s . (Id . a t 3) .

It thu s is unc lea r w he the r the D isc ip lina ry Po licy is pa rt o f NYU ’s qua lity

a ssu rance p rog ram . See S trin i, 2007 W L 1017280 , a t *4 (Sec tion s 2805 -m and 6527

“p ro tec t f rom d isc lo su re on ly tho se reco rd s and in fo rm a tion gene ra ted . . . pu rsuan t to . . .

qua lity a ssu rance ob liga tion s” ). H e re aga in , how eve r, the Cou rt need no t re so lve the

fac tua l issue becau se even if the D isc ip lina ry Po licy se rve s the same in te re sts a s the

Pub lic H ea lth and Educa tion L aw p riv ileg es, tho se p riv ileg es a re “no t an ab so lu te b a r to

d isc lo su re” if NYU ha s fa iled to show tha t the d isc lo su re o f the in fo rm a tion sough t by Pa l

w ou ld f ru s tra te the pu rpo ses unde rlying them . R yan , 2006 W L 1025890 , a t *3 .

The fede ra l cou rts h ave acknow ledged tha t imp rov ing the qua lity o f hea lth

ca re and low e ring the co st o f m a lp rac tice insu rance a re impo rtan t po licy goa ls o f the S tate

o f N ew Y o rk w h ich a re fu rthe red by “p ro tec ting the con f iden tiality o f inc iden t repo rts

rega rd ing phys ic ian m isconduc t.” T a rtag lia , 948 F . Supp . a t 328 (c iting W h ite , 1990 W L

33747 , a t *10 ) . C on sequen tly, to “pe rm it d isc lo su re o f the se repo rts in c ircum s tances

w he re the ir con ten ts cou ld lead to adm iss ib le ev idence o f m ed ica l m a lp rac tice wou ld be

en tire ly con tra ry to the sp irit and in ten t o f [N ew Y o rk ’s] comp rehen sive p ro fe ss iona l

m a lp rac tice leg isla tion .” Id . (quo ting W h ite, 1990 W L 33747 , at *10 ). H ow eve r, in bo th

T a rtag lia and W h ite the cou rt “a llow ed the d isc lo su re o f med ica l reco rd s . . . becau se the

pu rpo se o f the sta tu te w ou ld no t be se rved by m a in ta in ing con f iden tia lity in ac tion s tha t

w e re no t ba sed on med ica l m a lp rac tice .” Id . Indeed , in ac tion s “no t ba sed on c la im s o f

m ed ica l m a lp rac tice , w he re the unde rlying po licy o f im p rov ing m ed ica l ca re” is no t

im p lica ted , cou rts o f ten have “compe lled d isc lo su re o f pee r rev iew comm ittee f ind ing s .”

R yan , 2006 W L 1025890 , a t *3 . B u t see D a ly v . G enovese , 96 A .D .2d 1027 (2d D ep ’ t

1983 ) (p la in tif f in de fam a tion ac tion den ied d iscove ry rega rd ing pee r comm ittee rev iew

m ee ting s).

To da te , the fede ra l cou rts have had occas ion to con side r the app lica tion o f

the Pub lic H ea lth and Educa tion L aw p riv ilege s in f ive case s no t invo lv ing m ed ica l

m a lp rac tice . In each ca se , the cou rt e ithe r he ld tha t the p riv ilege s d id no t app ly o r

requ ired the d isc lo su re o f the a lleged ly p riv ileged ev idence fo r po licy rea son s . Tw o o f

the case s w e re fede ra l-que stion ca se s gove rned by federa l law and , the re fo re , a re no t

d irec tly app licab le . See W h ite , 1990 W L 33747 , a t *11 (requ iring d isc lo su re o f inc iden t

repo rts to pe rm it p la in tif f to p ro secu te c iv il righ ts ac tion aga in s t ho sp ita l); L izo tte v .

N .Y .C . H ea lth & H o sp s . C orp ., N o . 85 C iv . 7548 , 1989 WL 260217 , a t *2 -6 (S .D .N .Y .

N ov . 29 , 1989 ) (d irec ting d isc losu re o f ho sp ital inc iden t repo rts and m inu tes o f qua lity

assu rance comm i ttee m ee t ing s in c iv i l r igh ts ac t ion ) . The three rem a in ing ca ses w ere

d ive rsity case s. S trin i, 2007 W L 1017280 , at *2 ; Ryan , 2006 W L 1025890 , at *2 ;

T a rtag lia , 948 F . Supp . a t 326 . O f these , R yan and T a rtag lia a re pa rt icu la rly in s truc tive .

In R yan , the p la in tif f sough t the p roduc tion o f a lleged ly p riv ileged

do cum en ts rega rd ing a m ed ica l rev iew comm ittee m ee ting in o rde r to p rosecu te he r fa lse

adve rtis ing , decep tive bu sine ss p rac tice s, and comm on law f raud c la im s . R yan , 2006 W L

1025890 , at *4 . The p lain tiff a lleg ed tha t her hu sb and w en t f rom F lo rida to N ew Y o rk to

unde rgo u se le ss cance r trea tm en t on the ba sis o f the de fendan ts’ fa lse advertis ing . Id . a t

*1 . M ag istra te Judge M a tsum o to conc luded tha t the ho sp ital fa iled “ to m ee t its bu rden to

demon s tra te tha t d isc lo su re o f the in fo rm a tion sough t by p la in tif f w ou ld f ru s tra te the

po lic ie s beh ind the p riv ilege s it a sse rts .” Id . a t *4 . A s the judge exp la ined , the p la in tif f

d id no t “seek in fo rm a tion rega rd ing ‘m ed ica l m a lp rac tice ’ o r ‘physic ian m isconduc t’ to

demon s tra te tha t such ma lp rac tice o r m isconduc t ac tua lly occu rred .” Id . R a the r, the

p la in t iff sough t the info rm a t ion to dem on s tra te tha t the ho sp i ta l’s adver t isem en ts w ere

fa lse . The judge reasoned tha t d isc losu re the re fo re w ou ld no t ham pe r the ho sp ital in

p rov id ing cand id pee r rev iew s. Id . B a lan c ing the com pe ting in terests , the cou rt he ld

fu r ther tha t “ to p reven t d isc losu re w ou ld p reven t p la in t iff from ob ta in ing the v ery

ev idence needed to p ro secu te the . . . fa lse advertis ing . . . and comm on law f raud cau se s

o f ac tion . . . and w ou ld und e rm ine the po licy [o f the law s ] to en su re an hones t

m arke tp lace .” Id . a t *5 ( in terna l quo ta tion m ark s and c i ta t ion s om i tted) .

In T a rtag lia , a p la in tif f phys ic ian f iled a law su it in ano the r s ta te a f te r he

w a s den ied d isab ility and o the r in su rance bene f its . The de fendan t in su re r a lleged tha t the

doc to r had fa iled to revea l h is h is to ry o f d rug and a lcoho l abu se in h is app lica tion fo r

in su rance bene f its . A f te r a N ew Y o rk ho sp ita l dec lined to p roduce reco rd s re la ting to the

doc to r’s p rio r emp loym en t the re , the in su re r m oved pu rsuan t to R u le 45 (c ) o f the Fede ra l

R u le s o f C iv il P rocedu re to compe l the d isc lo su re o f pee r rev iew and qua lity a ssu rance

in fo rm a tion , a rgu ing tha t the se ma te ria ls w e re e ssen tia l to its de fen se and to p reven t

in su rance f raud . T a rtag lia , 948 F . Supp . a t 326 . A f te r de te rm in ing tha t N ew Y o rk law

app lied , Judge S te in ob se rved tha t the goa l o f bo th the Pub lic H ea lth and Educa tion L aw

p riv ileges is to reduce the inc idence o f m ed ica l m a lp rac tice in N ew Y o rk . Id . a t 328 . H e

he ld tha t the p riv ilege s con sequen tly d id no t app ly becau se the d isc lo su re o f the

documen ts in an ac tion invo lv ing con trac t and in su rance f raud c la im s , ra the r than

m a lp rac tice c la im s , w ou ld no t inc rease the fu tu re inc idence o f m a lp rac tice . Id . a t 328 -29 .

A s in R yan and Ta rtag lia , th is su it is no t b rough t to recover damage s fo r

m ed ica l m a lp rac tice , bu t to v ind ica te o the r r igh ts . S ign if ican t ly, tho se righ ts have a lso

been recogn ized by the N ew Y o rk leg is la tu re , w h ich enac ted Sec tion 741 o f the Labo r

L aw to encou rage em p loyee s to repo rts hazard s to the ir supe rv iso rs and to p ro tec t them

f rom re talia to ry pe rsonne l ac tion s w hen they m ake su ch repo rts. Spon so r’s M em . (O c t.

23 , 2001 ), N .Y . B ill Jacke t, L . 2002 , ch . 24 ; see C o lle tte v . S t. L uke ’s R oo seve lt H o sp .,

132 F . Supp . 2d 256 , 263 (S .D .N .Y . 2001 ) (c iting R odge rs v . L enox H ill H o sp ., 211

A .D .2d 248 , 250 -51 (1 s t D ep ’t 1995 )) . A dd itiona lly, a s in R yan , Pa l is no t seek ing

“ in fo rm a tion rega rd ing ‘m ed ica l m a lp rac tice ’ o r ‘physic ian m isconduc t’ to dem on stra te

tha t such m a lp rac tice o r m isconduc t ac tua lly occu rred .” R yan , 2006 W L 1025890 , a t *4 .

R a the r, Pa l seek s the ev idence to de te rm ine w he the r NYU ’s s ta ted rea son s fo r he r

d ischa rge w e re p re tex tua l. B ecau se any d isc lo su re o f the in fo rm a tion w ill p re sum ab ly be

sub jec t to a p ro tec t ive o rde r , (see D ock e t N o . 18 ) , the p ar t ic ipan ts in the d isc ip l inary

p roceed ing s a lso w ill con tinue to be a ssu red tha t they m ay open ly engage in a d iscu ss ion

o f a physic ian ’s ac tion s w ithou t fea r o f expo sing them se lves o r the ir ho sp ital to

m a lp rac tice liab ility. W h ile th is d isc lo su re cou ld po ten tia lly lead to NYU ’s liab ility on a
3

w h istleb low e r c laim , the Pub lic H ea lth and Educa tion Law p riv ileg es a re no t in tended to

gua rd aga in s t th is po ss ib ility.4

A t the ir co re , bo th Sec tion 741 and the Pub lic H ea lth and Educa tion L aw

p riv ilege s seek to im p rove pa tien t ca re . A s d iscu ssed above , w h ile the d isc lo su re Pa l

seek s w ou ld no t d iscou rage f rank pee r rev iew and the re fo re w ou ld no t hu rt pa tien t ca re , a

fa ilu re to m ake the d isc lo su re w ou ld “p reven t [Pa l] f rom ob ta in ing the ve ry ev idence

needed to p ro secu te” her L abo r L aw c la im and w ou ld unde rm ine Sec tion 741 ’s goa l o f

encou rag ing w h is tle b low ing by m ed ica l pe rsonne l. R yan , 2006 W L 1025890 , a t *5 .

O n ly if p la in tif f s can ob ta in the ev idence necessa ry to suppo rt the ir ca se can Sec tion 741

func tion a s it w a s in tended to and p rov ide p ro tec tion f rom re ta lia tion .

Additionally, NYU’s own regulations require that a summary of the disciplinary
3
interviews be provided to the fellow. (Disciplinary Policy at 11). Since the participants in the
disciplinary interviews presumably are aware that a summary of their statements will be
disclosed, it is difficult to see why the disclosure of the full interview transcripts would further
chill open discussion.

In Seaman v. Wyckoff Heights Med. Ctr., Inc., 25 A.D.3d 596 (2d Dep’t 2006), a
4
case relied upon by both NYU and Pal, a medical whistleblower, suing under Section 740 of the
New York Labor Law, moved to compel the production of privileged investigation reports and
hospital accreditation documents. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the
denial of the plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of documents protected by the Public
Health and Education Law privileges because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the evidence
was “material and necessary to the prosecution” of the action. Id. at 597. By implication, if the
documents sought had been shown to be material and necessary to the prosecution of the action,
the court would have ordered disclosure. Thus, if anything, Seaman supports Pal’s request
because the documents that she seeks may help her establish that the grounds for her dismissal
were pretextual.

Pa l’s m o tion to compe l the re fo re is g ran ted to the ex ten t she seek s the

d isc lo su re o f add itiona l in fo rm a tion conce rn ing the p ro cess tha t led to he r te rm ina tion .

M o re spec if ica lly, NYU is d irec ted to p roduce the tape reco rd ing s and tran sc rip ts o f the

in te rv iew s conduc ted by the A ppea ls C omm ittee pu rsuan t to the D isc ip lina ry Po licy.

NYU sha ll fu rthe r a llow B e rn s te in , R en , and R ile s to an sw e r add itiona l depo sition

ques t ion s re la t ing to the sub sequen t inves t iga t ion conduc ted pu rsuan t to the D isc ip l inary

Po licy and the A ppea ls C omm ittee ’s sub sequen t rev iew .

B .

Pa l’s O the r D iscove ry R equests

Pa l seek s to com pe l NYU to p rov ide fou r add itiona l ca tego ries o f ev idence :

(1 ) re spon se s to depo sition que stion s abou t a lleged com pa ra to r re siden ts ; (2 ) te stim ony

rega rd ing the d isc ip lina ry ac tion , if any, taken by NYU aga in s t R en and F ie ld ing ; (3 ) an

un redac ted ve rs ion o f an em a il tha t F ie ld ing sen t to C ohen on Feb rua ry 9 , 2006 ; and (4 )

re spon se s to depo sition que stion s po sed to R en abou t he r ro le in an a lleged in su rance

f raud .

1 .

D isc ip line o f O the r R esiden ts

D u ring seve ra l depo sition s, NYU ’s coun se l d irec ted w itnesses no t to

an sw e r question s abou t the d isc ip line impo sed on o the r re siden ts w ho a lleg ed ly

endangered pa tien t ca re . (See R en D ep . a t 176 -77 ; B e rn s te in D ep . a t 69 ; So lo ta ro f f

A f f irm . Ex . J (“R iles D ep .” ) a t 126 -27 ) . NYU fu rn ishes tw o jus tif ica tion s fo r these

in s truc tion s : f irs t, tha t the in fo rm a tion sough t w a s p riv ileged ; second , tha t the o the r

re siden ts’ c ircum s tances w e re no t compa rab le and , the re fo re , a re no t re levan t. (See

D e f .’s M em . a t 6 , 20 ) . A s no ted p rev iou s ly, the f i rs t o f these g rounds lacks m e r it becau se

th is is no t a ma lp rac tice su it. The second g round w ou ld requ ire Pa l to demon s tra te tha t

o the r s im ila rly-s itua ted re siden ts w e re trea ted d ispa ra te ly be fo re she cou ld ob ta in any

in fo rma tion abou t the m ann e r in w h ich the d isc ip l ina ry p roceed ing s aga ins t tho se

ind iv idua ls w e re re so lved . Th is obv iou s ly is an im po ss ib le bu rden . Indeed , NYU re fu sed

to let its w itnesses ind ica te even in “yes” o r “no” fo rm w he the r the re w e re o the r re siden ts

w ho had endange red pa tien t ca re bu t w e re no t te rm ina ted . (S ee B e rn s te in D ep . a t 69 ).

W h ile it m ay u ltim a tely be estab lished tha t Pa l’s s itua tion w as un ique , she is, a t a

m in imum , en titled to exp lo re th is issue . NYU ’s w itnesses w ill the re fo re be requ ired to

re spond to Pa l’s que stion s rega rd ing the ex is tence o f o the r re siden ts w ho w e re re ta ined

desp ite hav ing endange red pa tien t sa fe ty.

Pa l is no t en titled , how eve r , to engage in a f ish ing exped ition . A cco rd ing ly,

to the ex ten t tha t Pa l seek s fu rthe r de ta ils , NYU need on ly p rov ide in fo rm a tion a t the

depo sition s o f its w itne sse s concern ing the app rox im a te numbe rs o f re siden ts w ho kep t

the ir job s de sp ite hav ing endangered the ir pa tien ts and the genera l type o f w rongdo ing

tha t w as a lleged . NYU m ay w ithho ld any in fo rm a tion iden tifying tho se re s iden ts .

A dd itiona lly, un le ss Pa l is ab le to m ake a show ing o f pa rticu la rized need , NYU w ill no t

be requ ired to p roduce any do cum en ts re la ting to the d isc ip l ine o f the o the r res iden ts .

2 .

D isc ip lina ry A c tion A ga in s t F ie ld ing and R en

Pa l a lso seek s d isc lo su re o f any ev idence re la ting to “any inve stiga tion

conduc ted by NYU H o sp ita l[ s] C en te r concern ing” R en o r F ie ld ing and the ou tcome o f

tha t inve stiga tion . (P l .’s M em a t 25 ) . In add ition to its p riv ilege c la im s , NYU a rgue s tha t

th is in fo rm a tion is no t re levan t becau se “ the re is no que stion tha t [ they] w e re no t

P la in tif f ’s compa ra to rs .” (D e f .’s M em a t 6 ) . A s I no ted du ring a te lephone con fe rence

on Ju ly 23 , 2007 , the me re fac t tha t R en and F ie ld ing m ay have fa r m o re experience than

Pa l do es no t mean tha t the in fo rm a t ion sough t is no t re levan t . Fo r exam p le , F ie ld ing ’s

sudden change o f hea rt abou t h is w illingne ss to con tinue w o rk ing w ith Pa l m ay be

exp lain ed by h is fea r tha t Pa l w ou ld p rec ip itate an investiga tion o f h im . A ltern a tive ly, if

Pa l’s a llega tion s rega rd ing F ie ld ing had a lready cau sed an inve stiga tion to be launched ,

F ield ing ’s change o f po sition m igh t be a ttribu tab le to h is desire fo r re tribu tion . A t a

m in im um , in fo rm a tion abou t the ou tcome o f any d isc ip lina ry p roceed ing aga in s t F ie ld ing

m igh t he lp Pa l exp la in h is an imu s tow ard her . The info rm a t ion m igh t a lso suppo r t Pa l’s

c la im tha t she became a scapegoa t fo r the w rongdo ing o f he r supe rv iso rs . W h ile the

adm iss ib ility o f ev idence rega rd ing the ou tcome o f inve stiga tion s o f R en and F ie ld ing a t

tria l is by no m ean s ce rta in , a t th is p re lim ina ry s tage , in the ab sence o f a va lid c la im o f

p riv ilege under the Pub lic H ea lth o r Educa tion L aw p riv ilege s, in fo rm a tion concern ing

the d isc ip line im po sed (o r no t im po sed ) on R en and F ie ld ing is p la in ly d iscove rab le .

3 .

U n redac ted Em a il

NYU ha s tu rned ove r to Pa l a ve rs ion o f F ie ld ing ’s ema il da ted Feb rua ry 9 ,

2006 , con ta in ing seve ra l redac tion s . The on ly ju s tif ica tion fo r these redac tion s tha t NYU

p rov ide s is tha t they w e re made “ to p ro tec t the con f iden tia lity o f in fo rm a tion p riv ileged

under the N ew Y o rk s ta tu to ry p rov is ion s d iscu ssed here in and do no t re la te to P la in t iff ’s

te rm ina tion .” (D e f .’s M em a t 21 ) . NYU a lso con tend s tha t Pa l’s a sse rtion tha t the

redac ted in fo rm a tion is ha rm fu l to NYU is “conc lu so ry and w ithou t any ba sis in fac t.”

(Id .).

NYU has fu rn ished the C ou r t w i th the un redac ted em a i l fo r in cam era

rev iew . (See le tte r f rom D iane K reb s , E sq ., to the Cou rt, da ted N ov . 16 , 2007 ) . The

redac ted po rtion s o f the em a il rela te to NYU ’s h and ling o f ce rta in o f Pa l’s com p lain ts

rega rd ing R en . A s such , they p la in ly a re re levan t. M o reove r, the on ly p riv ilege s tha t

NYU ha s c ited a s a ba sis fo r its redac tion s a re inapp licab le . NYU the re fo re w ill be

requ ired to p roduce F ie ld ing ’s Feb rua ry 9 em a il in un redac ted fo rm .

4 .

In su rance F raud

Pa l a lso seek s to compe l R en to an sw e r ce rta in que stion s abou t he r

tes tim ony in p rio r cases and a lleged p rio r pa rtic ipa tion in f raudu len t ac tiv ity. (P l.’s M em .

a t 25 ) . A lthough Pa l’s m o tion pape rs c ite on ly an in s truc tion f rom NYU ’s coun se l

d irec ting R en no t to an sw e r que stion s rega rd ing w he the r she in ten tiona lly had m iscoded

p rocedu re s so tha t in su re rs w ou ld pay fo r them , (see Ren D ep . a t 77 -78 , 96 ) , R en a lso w a s

in s truc ted no t to tes tify as to w he the r she tes tif ied in p rio r m a lp rac tice cases . (Id . a t 9 ).

Pa l argues tha t bo th inqu iries w ere p rop er becau se they re la te to R en ’s cred ib i li ty. (P l .’s

M em . a t 12 ) .

The on ly ju s tif ica tion advanced fo r the in s truc tion s re la ting to R en ’s a lleged

in su rance f raud is tha t she has a F if th Am endm en t r igh t no t to inc rim ina te he rse lf .

(D e f .’s M em . a t 21 -22 ) . Tha t canno t be se riou s ly d ispu ted . See OSR ecovery, Inc . v . O ne

G roupe In t’l, Inc ., 262 F . Supp . 2d 302 , 306 (S .D .N .Y . 2003 ) (“A n ind iv idua l m ay invoke

the F if th Am endmen t to dec line to an sw e r a depo sition que stion w hen the ind iv idua l ha s

rea sonab le cau se to app rehend tha t an sw e ring the que stion w ill p rov ide the gove rnm en t

w ith ev idence to fue l a c rim ina l p ro secu tion .”). N eve rthe les s, if a tru th fu l an sw e r w ou ld

tend to inc rim ina te R en , she m u st invoke he r F if th Am endm en t righ t he rse lf ; coun se l is

no t en titled to instru c t he r no t to an sw e r on tha t g round . See U n ited S tate s v . Schm id t,

816 F .2d 1477 , 1481 n .3 (10 th C ir . 1987 ) (on ly ho lde rs o f F if th Am endmen t p riv ilege ,

“no t the i r counse l, a re the p rope r pa r ties to in te rpose a c la im o f p r iv i lege” ) ; see a lso

U n ited S tate s v . Bow e , 698 F .2d 560 , 566 (2d C ir. 1983 ) (F if th Am endm en t p roh ib its

“b lanke t a sse rtion” o f p riv ilege ); M o ll v . U .S . L ife T itle In s . C o . o f N .Y ., 113 F .R .D . 625 ,

628 -29 (S .D .N .Y . 1987 ) (ava i lab i lity o f F if th Am endm en t p riv i lege ag a ins t

se lf -inc rim ina tion doe s no t m ean tha t w itne ss need no t a ttend depo sition ; p rope r

p ro cedu re is fo r d eponen t to a ttend depo s ition and an sw e r non -inc rim ina ting ques tion s).

NYU shou ld be fo rew a rned , how eve r, tha t R en ’s invoca tion o f he r F if th Am endmen t

p riv ilege in th is c iv il case m ay w a rran t an in fe rence tha t she engaged in in su rance f raud .

B ax ter v . Pa lm ig iano , 425 U .S . 308 , 318 (1976 ) (“ the F if th Am endm en t does no t fo rb id

adv e rse in fe rences ag a ins t pa r ties to c iv il ac tion s w hen they re fuse to testify in respon se

to p roba tive ev idence o f fe red aga in s t them ” ).

Tu rn ing to the depo s i tion ques t ion s abou t pr io r m a lprac t ice su i ts , NYU ’s

coun se l d id no t exp ress ly sta te a basis du ring the depo sition fo r in stru c ting R en no t to

an sw e r , bu t the ra tiona le w as appa ren tly tha t the inqu iry w as b a rred by the Pub lic H ea lth

and Educa tion L aw p riv ileg es. Inasm uch as tho se p riv ileg es do no t app ly to th is

w h is tleb low er su i t, R en ’s coun se l’s in s truc t ion w as im p rop er .5

IV .

C onc lu s ion

Pa l’s m o tion to com pe l is g ran ted to the ex ten t se t fo rth above . NYU is

d irec ted to p rov ide any in fo rm a tion requ ired by th is M emo randum D ec is ion and O rde r

w ith in ten bu sine ss days . The rea f te r, Pa l m ay depo se B e rn s te in , R en , and R ile s fo r an

add itiona l hou r pe r deponen t to exp lo re any issues d irec tly re lated to , o r reasonab ly

a r is ing ou t o f , the add i tion a l m a te r ia ls tha t NYU has been d irec ted to d isc lose . Tho se

depo s ition s a re to be com p le ted on o r b e fo re Janua ry 4 , 2008 .

Rule 30(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure previously provided that all
5
“objections made at the time of the examination . . . shall be noted by the officer upon the record
of the deposition; but the examination shall proceed, with the testimony being taken subject to
the objections.” As of December 1, 2007, an amendment to Rule 30(c), intended to codify
existing practice, added the clarification that a “person may instruct a deponent not to answer
only when necessary to preserve a privilege.” Thus, NYU may not instruct a deposition witness
not to answer a question on the basis of relevance.