Dr. Jessica Ecock-Rotondo, the plaintiff in this case, alleges that her former employer, the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT), engaged in discrimination and retaliation when it hired a less-qualified Black man over her for the position of director of the Center for Student Conduct and Conflict Resolution. She claims that this decision was influenced by racial preferences and retaliation for her previous reports of discriminatory behavior. In response, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel the production of documents related to RIT's strategic diversity plan and the deposition of RIT’s chief human resources officer, Jo Ellen Pinkham. The court had set a deadline for discovery motions, but the plaintiff continued to seek the requested documents after RIT provided incomplete responses, leading her to file a motion in February 2025.

The court addressed whether the plaintiff had good cause to modify the scheduling order in order to proceed with her motion to compel, which had been filed after the deadline. The court concluded that the plaintiff had shown diligence in her efforts to obtain the requested documents and had rescheduled Pinkham’s deposition, which had been initially canceled due to incomplete document production by RIT. Given these circumstances, the court determined that good cause existed to modify the scheduling order and allow the motion to proceed despite the missed deadline.

Regarding the document production, the court found that by February 28, 2025, RIT had provided all relevant documents requested by the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff sought certification under oath from RIT that no other responsive documents existed. The court declined to order this certification, as RIT had already produced the requested documents, and the plaintiff’s motion for further discovery on this issue was considered moot.

The court also addressed the plaintiff’s request to compel the deposition of Jo Ellen Pinkham. RIT had objected to Pinkham’s deposition, citing the “apex doctrine,” which limits depositions of high-ranking officials. However, the court found that RIT had not provided sufficient evidence to justify Pinkham’s protection under this doctrine. Since Pinkham was involved in the recruitment process and had close involvement with other witnesses, the court ruled that her deposition could provide relevant information. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to compel Pinkham's deposition.

Finally, the court considered the plaintiff’s request for sanctions against the defendant for failing to comply with discovery obligations. The plaintiff sought sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d), arguing bad faith by the defendant’s counsel. However, the court found no evidence of bad faith or improper conduct by the defendant. It also noted that the defendant had made reasonable efforts to comply with discovery obligations and had engaged in regular communication with the plaintiff. As a result, the court denied the request for sanctions, granted the motion to amend the scheduling order, and instructed the defendant to arrange a deposition date for Pinkham.

If your organization is seeking support with eDiscovery, our team has solutions to address all phases of the discovery process. At CODISCOVR, we deliver client-focused, defensible, and scalable solutions using advanced technology and intelligent review practices to meet eDiscovery, document review, and information governance needs in a manner that reduces the risks and costs associated with electronically stored information (ESI). Reach out to Shari Coltoff at CODISCOVR for more information. Shari has over 20 years of experience in the ever-evolving eDiscovery life cycle, from document collection to managing large long-term reviews through productions.