A federal judge on Thursday tore into New York City lawyers for blowing past court-ordered discovery in a class-action lawsuit that claims the city denies in vitro fertilization benefits to gay male employees. Judge Jeannette A. Vargas said she was "very, very troubled" by their conduct and called parts of the city's discovery work "appalling" — not exactly the review any litigator wants to hear from the bench — turning a spotlight on how the Law Department is handling the case.
Judge extends ESI deadline after missed production target
The court had originally directed defendants to complete searches of electronically stored information (ESI) by January 2026. After the city asked for more time, the judge agreed to a rolling production schedule and ordered that work finished by March 31, 2026, while warning there would be no more extensions. That revised timetable, and the no-more-excuses message that came with it, are reflected on the federal docket, according to the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, which notes the Feb. 4, 2026 order setting the new March deadline.
Judge slams city's discovery practices, notes use of AI
In recent hearings, the judge ripped into the city's team for missing deadlines and for the way they ran their document searches, calling the conduct troubling and "appalling." City lawyers told the court they relied on a technology-assisted review (TAR) tool to triage documents, and plaintiffs' attorneys have asked the court to consider sanctions over the discovery lapses. As reported by THE CITY, the judge's comments and the description of the TAR process appear in court transcripts and filings.
What the lawsuit alleges
The case, filed May 9, 2024, by Corey Briskin and Nicholas Maggipinto, alleges that the city's health-plan definition of "infertility" effectively excludes gay men and, as a result, denies them the same IVF coverage available to straight couples, lesbian couples and single women. The complaint leans on the American Society for Reproductive Medicine's 2023 committee opinion, which defines infertility to include "the need for medical intervention, including, but not limited to, the use of donor gametes," arguing that the city's narrower standard is discriminatory. See the plaintiffs' complaint and the ASRM committee opinion (ASRM).
Legal implications and next steps
Plaintiffs are seeking class certification and damages that could affect thousands of city employees and their partners if the policy is found unlawful. The court has ordered rolling ESI productions, set deadlines for transcripts and redactions from earlier conferences, and signaled it intends to keep the case on a tight schedule while discovery fights play out. Upcoming status conferences and transcript restrictions, detailed on the docket and summarized by the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, will help determine how quickly the litigation moves.
Politics, pressure and what comes next
The lawsuit has already drawn scrutiny from advocates and lawmakers who want clearer, more inclusive fertility coverage, and plaintiffs' lawyers say more than 2,000 gay male city employees and their spouses could be affected. Early coverage cast the complaint as part of a broader national push to update employer fertility benefits after medical groups revised key definitions and some states tightened IVF mandates. For background on the original filing, see reporting from The Washington Post.
