Case Activity (1766)

1. Order | Filed: July 27, 2026 E.C. et al v. New York Presbyterian Hudson Valley Hospital et al

   Personal Inj. Med. Malpractice | New York Southern

   Order

   ORDER : At a discovery conference held on July 27, 2026, the Court addressed a discovery dispute raised in the parties' joint letter relating to Plaintiffs' demand for the anesthesia report from the C-section performed prior to Plaintiff 039;s C-section, subject to redactions. (ECF No. 121). To assess whether to revisit its prior ruling denying the production in the form requested, the Court will conduct an in camera review. By August 3, 2026, Defendant-hospital is directed to submit to the Court for in camera review hard copies of the anesthesia report and case spec attendance sheets from the prior C-section under seal, with redactions of PII relating to the non-party patient. In their submission, Defendant-hospital should also provide an explanation of pertinent sections of each document, including information on the personnel present and their in-and-out timing, and the basis for their representation that the anesthesia report contains no additional responsive informatio n. If, after conducting an in camera review, the Court decides to revisit its prior ruling on this discovery dispute, the Court will provide the parties an opportunity to brief the issue and will set a briefing schedule for a formal motion. All in camera submissions shall be sent in hard copy by mail to Chambers. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik on 7/27/2026) (sgz)

2. Minutes | Filed: July 27, 2026 | Entered: July 27, 2026 E.C. et al v. New York Presbyterian Hudson Valley Hospital et al

   Personal Inj. Med. Malpractice | New York Southern

   Discovery Hearing

   Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik: In-Person Discovery Conference scheduled on 07/27/2026 at 10:30 am and recorded on Courtflow. All appeared, with Defendant U.S.A. on the telephone. The Court met with the parties to resolve five discovery disputes raised in the parties' joint letter. (ECF No. 121). First, with respect to Plaintiffs' demand for the names and titles of individuals in charge of staffing and scheduling on the Labor and Delivery floor on the date of the alleged malpractice, Defendant-hospital was directed to determine if such individuals exist and, if so, to provide their names and titles (and last known address, if no longer employed) by August 3, 2026. Within one week of receiving that information from Defendant-hospital, Plaintiffs shall serve, if any, a notice of deposition or subpoena of the individual. Any deposition of such individual shall be limited to three hours on the subject of staffing and scheduling on the Labor and Delivery floor on the date of the alleged malpractice. Second, as to Plaintiffs' demand for peer review statements given or made by Defendants involved in the labor and delivery of Plaintiffs, Defendants confirmed that no such peer review statements exist, resolving this dispute. Third, regarding Plaintiffs' demand for contracts between Defendant-hospital and Defendant U.S.A. in effect on the date of the alleged malpractice, Defendant-hospital was directed to verify if such contracts exist. If the contracts exist, Defendant-hospital shall inform the Court by August 5, 2026, and submit them to the Court for in camera review by August 7, 2026. Fourth, as to Plaintiffs' request for the anesthesia report from the C-section prior to Plaintiff's C-section, subject to redactions, Defendant-hospital was directed to submit to the Court for in camera review hard copies of the anesthesia report and case spec attendance sheets from the prior C-section under seal, with redactions of PII relating to the non-party patient, by August 3, 2026. Defendant-hospital should also provide an explanation of pertinent sections of each document, including information on the personnel present and their in-and-out timing, and the basis for their representation that the anesthesia report contains no additional responsive information. The Court will separately issue an order regarding same. Finally, the Court granted Plaintiffs' request for leave to depose Ms. Gore and directed Defendant U.S.A. to produce her for a deposition limited to two hours on the subject of staffing and scheduling the Labor and Delivery floor on the date of the alleged malpractice. (jm)

3. 1764 additional result(s)