Singh v. New York State Department of Tax & Finance et al

Filing 142

ORDER granting 139 Defendants' Motion for Protective Order and denying Defendant ECC's 140 Motion to Compel Plaintiff to submit to a mental examination without prejudice to renew pending the outcome of Defendants' dispositive motions, to be filed by 7/13/2012. Signed by Hon. John T. Curtin on 6/18/2012. (JEC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DEEKSHA K. SINGH,
Plaintiff,
-v-

06-CV-0299-JTC

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF
TAXATION AND FINANCE,
ERIE COMMUNITY COLLEGE,
COUNTY OF ERIE, and
WILLIAM D. REUTER,
Defendants.

By Notice of Deposition dated March 6, 2012, plaintiff Deeksha Singh seeks to
depose defendant William D. Reuter and ECC employees Jack Quinn, Devendra Singh,
Donna Kokanovich, Darley Willis, Richard Schott, and Eileen Flaherty. See Item 139-2,
p. 2. Defendants Reuter and Erie Community College (collectively, “ECC”) responded by
letter dated April 25, 2012, with proposed dates and times for the depositions of William
D. Reuter, Richard Schott, Darley Willis and Eileen Flaherty, and advising plaintiff that Mr.
Quinn (ECC’s President), Mr. Singh (plaintiff’s father, a professor of mathematics at ECC),
and Ms. Kokanovich (ECC’s Supervisor of Accounts Payable) would not be produced for
deposition since these employees had no direct involvement in, and possessed no
information relevant to, plaintiff’s claims against ECC for alleged violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
– the only remaining claims in the case. See Item 139-2, pp. 4-6. Plaintiff responded by
letter dated May 2, 2012 in which she insisted on deposing Mr. Quinn, Mr. Singh, and Ms.

Kokanovich because they “participated in acts of retaliation against [plaintiff] due to [her]
discrimination complaint against NYSDOTF [the New York State Department of Taxation
and Finance] ….” Item 139-2, p. 9.
ECC now moves for a protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that: “[a] party or any person from whom
discovery is sought may move for a protective order … to protect a party or person from
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense ….” ECC relies on
this

court’s

October

21,

2011

order

(adopting

the

July

28,

2011

Decision/Order/Report/Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio)
dismissing in their entirety plaintiff’s claims based on allegations of a continuing conspiracy
of retaliation for filing the discrimination charge against NYSDOTF. See Item 107, p. 9.
ECC also relies on the declaration of Ms. Flaherty, ECC’s Director of Human Resources,
explaining that Mr. Quinn, Mr. Singh, and Ms. Kokanovich “had no involvement with any
personnel decisions of any conceivable relevance to the plaintiff’s ADA or FMLA
claims ….” Item 139-3, ¶ 5; see also ¶¶ 8, 9.
Based on these representations and the court’s prior rulings, and for the reasons
set forth at further length in the submissions supporting ECC’s application, the court finds
it necessary to issue this order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) protecting Jack Quinn,
Devendra Singh, and Donna Kokanovich from the annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, or undue burden and expense associated with having to give deposition
testimony with respect to claims which are no longer viable in the case, and as to which
these witnesses could offer no relevant information.

-2-

ECC has also filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 35 seeking an order
directing plaintiff to submit to a mental examination in order to properly defend against
plaintiff’s allegations related to emotional distress damages (Item 140). This motion is
denied without prejudice to renew pending the outcome of defendants’ dispositive motions
on the liability issues address by this court’s October 21, 2011 order, scheduled to be filed
on or before July 13, 2012.
So ordered.

\s\ John T. Curtin
JOHN T. CURTIN
United States District Judge
Dated: 6/18

, 2012

p:\pending\2006\06-299.june15.2012

-3-