Bhattacharya v. Murray

KIERAN RAVI BHATTACHARYA, Plaintiff, v. JAMES B. MURRAY, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-00054

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Charlottesville Division

May 2, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

Joel C. Hoppe United States Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the Court on the University of Virginia (“UVA”) Defendants' motion for protective order under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 385 (“UVA Defs.' Mot. for Prot Order”); see ECF No. 344. These Defendants ask the Court to strike or narrow the scope of numerous interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admission in Plaintiff Kieran Bhattacharya's Fourth, Fifth, and Seventh sets of discovery requests. See generally UVA Defs.' Br. in Supp. Mot. for Prot. Order 7-22, ECF No. 366; id. Ex. B, Pl.'s 4th Set of Disc. Reqs., ECF No. 366-2; id. Ex. E Pl.'s 5th Set of Disc. Reqs., ECF No. 366-5; id. Ex. J, Pl.'s 7th Set of Disc. Reqs., ECF No. 366-10. The motion has been fully briefed. ECF Nos. 366, 368, 375, 376 387, 388. On April 25, 2022, I held a hearing at which counsel for all parties addressed the challenged requests at length. This Memorandum Opinion & Order memorializes my rulings from the bench and further explains my rationale for granting the UVA Defendants' motion for protective order Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1), and limiting the number of outstanding requests to which Defendant Sara Rasmussen must respond, Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C).

I. Background

This case relates to Bhattacharya's suspension and dismissal from the UVA School of Medicine in the fall of 2018. See generally Bhattacharya v. Murray, 515 F.Supp.3d 436, 444-52 (W.D. Va. 2021) (Moon, J.) (“Bhattacharya I”); Bhattacharya v. Murray, No. 3:19cv54, 2022 WL 808500, at *1, *3-5 (W.D. Va. Mar. 16, 2022) (Moon, J.) (“Bhattacharya II”). On October 25, 2018, Bhattacharya attended a panel discussion on “microaggressions” sponsored by the American Medical Women's Association (“AMWA”) at UVA Medical School. “During the event, UVA Professor Beverly Colwell Adams, Ph.D., gave a roughly seventeen-minute presentation about her research on microaggressions, and Bhattacharya asked Adams some questions” during the question-and-answer session. Bhattacharya I, 515 F.Supp.3d at 444 (citing Am. Compl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 33); accord Second Am. Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 335. After an initial exchange about Adams's “‘definition of microaggressions, '” and whether someone must be “‘a member of a marginalized group'” to be “a victim of microaggression, ” Bhattacharya asked “an additional series of questions” challenging Adams's research and “‘the basis for which [she's] going to tell someone that they've committed a microaggression.'” Bhattacharya I, 515 F.Supp.3d at 445 (citing Am. Compl. Ex. 2) (audio recording of panel discussion); accord Second Am. Compl. ¶ 69.

“At that point, Assistant Professor Sara Rasmussen, a fellow panelist who helped organize the event, responded, ‘OK, I'll take that. And I think that we need to make sure to open up the floor to lots of people for questions.'” Bhattacharya I, 515 F.Supp.3d at 445 (quoting Am. Compl. ¶ 4); accord Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 70-71. “Rasmussen then told a story about how her former peers and colleagues had subjected her to ‘harmless jokes' and microaggressions” perpetuating stereotypes about people who grew up in rural states, like Rasmussen did, noting that her colleagues likely did not intend to offend her. Bhattacharya I, 515 F.Supp.3d at 444 (citing Am. Compl. ¶ 58). “She concluded: ‘You have to learn to uncouple the intent of what you're saying and the impact it has on the audience. And you have a responsibility for the impact of your actions....But don't get frustrated with [a] person for bringing it to your attention.'” Bhattacharya I, 515 F.Supp.3d at 445 (citing Am. Compl. ¶ 58); accord Second Am. Compl. ¶ 71. Bhattacharya responded,

I have to respond to that because I never talked about getting frustrated at a person for making a statement. I never condoned any statement that you are making like that. But what I'm saying is that you're providing anecdotal evidence. That's what you provided. That's what [Adams] provided -

Bhattacharya I, 515 F.Supp.3d at 445 (citing Am. Compl. ¶¶ 59-60); accord Second Am. Compl. ¶ 72. Rasmussen replied that Adams had “provided a lot of citations in the literature” and noted she was “just reading [Bhattacharya's] body language.” Bhattacharya I, 515 F.Supp.3d at 445; accord Second Am. Compl. ¶ 73. “Bhattacharya then began to speak over Rasmussen, who called on someone else to ask a question. [His] dialogue with Adams and Rasmussen lasted approximately five minutes and fifteen seconds.” Bhattacharya I, 515 F.Supp.3d at 445-46 (internal citation omitted).

Later that evening, Professor Nora Kern, another panelist at the AMWA discussion, filed a “Professionalism Concern Card” against Bhattacharya identifying “‘Respect for Others' and ‘Respect for Differences' as areas of concern.” Bhattacharya I, 515 F.Supp.3d at 446 (citing Am. Compl. Ex. 13, ECF No. 33-13). She explained that Bhattacharya “asked a series of questions that were quite antagonistic toward the panel” and that “[h]is level of frustration/anger seemed to escalate until another faculty member defused the situation by calling on another student for questions.” Am. Compl. Ex. 13. Kern concluded, “I am shocked that a med student would show so little respect toward faculty. It worries me how he will do on wards.” Id. Kern told Rasmussen and Christine Peterson, Assistant Dean for Medical Education, about the card she filed, but she did not mention her concerns to Bhattacharya. See Bhattacharya I, 515 F.Supp.3d at 446. Over the next few days, at least four more people filed written complaints about Bhattacharya's “questions and comments” during the AMWA panel. Second Am. Compl. ¶ 74. They described his behavior as “aggressive and confrontational, ” id. ¶ 75; “combative and aggressive against the panelists, ” id. ¶ 76; and “extremely disrespectful, unprofessional, and condescending, ” id. ¶ 78. Two complainants reported that Bhattacharya repeatedly “interrupted” the panelists. Id. ¶¶ 77, 78. One also took issue with the content his comments, noting that “Bhattacharya had ‘called the legitimacy of one panelist's research into question.'” Id. ¶ 77. On October 27, Dean Randolph Canterbury forwarded one of the complaints to Dean John Densmore, Bhattacharya's advisor, noting, “‘I think this is the equivalent of a concern card.'” Id. ¶ 79. Bhattacharya met with Peterson and Densmore on October 31 and November 1, respectively. Neither administrator told Bhattacharya about the professionalism complaints or expressed concern about his behavior at the AMWA panel. See id. ¶¶ 90-95.

On the afternoon of November 14, 2018, the Academic Standards and Achievement Committee (“ASAC”) met to review Kern's professionalism concern card. See Bhattacharya I, 515 F.Supp.3d at 447. “UVA Medical School's Policy on Academic and Professional Advancement vests the ASAC with the power to act on behalf of the School of Medicine's faculty ‘patterns of unprofessional behavior and egregious violations of professionalism.'” Id. The policy in effect at the relevant time contained the following language:

If a student receives three or more written observations of concern . . ., or is cited for a single egregious breach of professionalism, notice will be sent to ASAC for review. A student identified as having a pattern of unprofessional behavior may be directed to further counseling and/or to supportive remediation and/or placed on academic warning or academic probation . . ., or if the professional violations are severe, a student may be dismissed from school even if they have passing grades in all courses.....

Id. (quoting Am. Compl. Ex. 9, ECF No. 33-9) (emphasis omitted). Kern, a voting member of the ASAC, was the only voting member who also witnessed the events at the AMWA panel three weeks earlier. Peterson also attended the ASAC meeting as a guest. The meeting minutes memorialized the text of Kern's concern card and noted under “Professionalism Issues” that the “committee voted unanimously to send Kieran Bhattacharya (Densmore) a letter reminding him of the importance in medicine to show respect to all: colleagues, other staff, and patients and their families.” Id. (quoting Am. Compl. ¶¶ 77, 88). Committee Chair Jim B. Tucker, M.D., emailed the ASAC's letter to Bhattacharya on November 15, 2018. The letter read in its entirety:

Dear Mr. Bhattacharya:

The Academic Standards and Achievement Committee has received notice of a concern about your behavior at a recent AMWA panel. It was thought to be unnecessarily antagonistic and disrespectful. Certainly, people may have different opinions on various issues, but they need to express them in appropriate ways.

It is always important in medicine to show mutual respect to all: colleagues, other staff, and patients and their families. We would suggest that you consider getting counseling in order to work on your skills of being able to express yourself appropriately.

Id. at 448 (quoting Am. Compl. ¶ 91). Bhattacharya did not immediately receive a copy of this letter because he was in the hospital. Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 13(a)-(f), 139, 148-49; see Bhattacharya I, 515 F.Supp.3d at 449 & n.4 (noting “Bhattacharya repeatedly denied receiving the letter” at a second ASAC hearing on November 28, 2018, but now “admits that he had in fact received the letter” before that date).

Earlier on November 14, 2018, Bhattacharya met with Densmore to discuss his failing score on a recent Hematology exam. See Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 143-47. “Bhattacharya assured Dean Densmore that he has passed the course and was confident that ...