The following e-filed documents listed on NYSCEF (Motion No. 003) numbered 66-76, 89, 94, 96, 101-104 were read on this motion.

Upon the foregoing papers, the motion by Defendants AVIS BUDGET CAR RENTAL, LLC, BUDGET TRUCK RENTAL LLC, and W.C. WEALTH GROUP DIV. 1 LLC (collectively "Defendants") pursuant to CPLR § 3124, seeking to compel Plaintiff Ian Frank to [*2]execute HIPAA or other legally sufficient authorizations for the release of educational records from Frederick Douglass Academy VII and Tompkins Cortland Community College, is granted for the reasons set forth herein.

I. Facts

This personal injury action arises from a motor vehicle collision which allegedly occurred on June 17, 2023, in Bergen County, New Jersey, involving Plaintiff and a vehicle purportedly owned and/or operated by Defendants. Plaintiff commenced the instant action by filing a Summons and Complaint on January 25, 2024. Defendants answered on May 10, 2024.

Plaintiff's Verified and Supplemental Bills of Particulars detail an expansive inventory of claimed injuries, including but not limited to: bilateral wrist ligament tears; cervical, thoracic, and lumbar disc herniations; right ankle and knee derangements; bilateral shoulder impingements; and post-concussion syndrome. Significantly, Plaintiff asserts he suffered a traumatic brain injury, accompanied by cognitive deficits such as white matter dysfunction, traumatic axonal shearing, memory loss, decreased fractional anisotropy, and impaired vision.

Plaintiff testified at deposition that he has been rendered unable to work since the accident, previously having been employed at The Children's Village. He also asserted an occupational loss from a secondary stream of income, eSports gaming and influencer contracts, which he has allegedly been unable to continue due to diminished cognitive speed. Additionally, Plaintiff testified to having undergone cognitive, speech, and psychotherapy treatments, with continued care pending workers' compensation approvals.

In light of the nature and extent of Plaintiff's alleged cognitive and vocational deficits, Defendants served a post-deposition Notice for Discovery and Inspection requesting educational records from the aforementioned institutions. Plaintiff objected, deeming the request overbroad and irrelevant. Pursuant to this Court's Discovery Order dated April 22, 2025, Defendants now move for relief under CPLR 3124.

II. Conclusions of Law

A. Standard of Review

Under CPLR § 3101 [a], "[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof." The language is not discretionary. The Court of Appeals has underscored the breadth of this standard, emphasizing that "material and necessary" should be interpreted to include any disclosure that will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay. (see Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ'g Co., 21 NY2d 403 [1968]; Forman v Henkin, 30 NY3d 656 [2018]).

CPLR § 3124 provides the procedural mechanism to enforce discovery obligations when a party fails to comply with valid demands. The disclosure sought must be tailored to the factual matrix of the case and reasonably calculated to yield relevant information.

B. Applicability to Plaintiff's Educational Records

The nexus between Plaintiff's educational history and the injuries claimed, specifically cognitive and vocational impairments, is not speculative. Plaintiff himself has placed his educational, intellectual, and vocational baseline into issue. He claims substantial losses in earning capacity, a traumatic brain injury with ongoing cognitive therapy, and a future reliance on vocational rehabilitation.

Defendants' vocational expert, Dr. Daniel Wolstein, opined that Plaintiff's ability to benefit from job retraining and to re-enter the workforce in an alternative capacity is necessarily informed by his "past educational attainment." This evaluation squarely aligns with established [*3]authority. In Milligan v Bifulco, 153 AD3d 1624 [4th Dept 2017], the Fourth Department held that a plaintiff's special education records were relevant and discoverable when the plaintiff claimed a loss of economic capacity.

Furthermore, in Wepy v Shen, 175 AD2d 124 [2d Dept 1991], academic records were found discoverable not merely because they were unprivileged, but because their relevance was affirmatively demonstrated in light of the claims presented. Contrary to Plaintiff's interpretation, Wepy does not require the existence of a neurological expert opinion to unlock academic records, but rather requires a showing that such records bear on the claims advanced. That threshold has been surpassed here.

Plaintiff's objections based on privacy concerns, while not insubstantial, do not overcome the mandate of CPLR § 3101 where the records bear directly on the plaintiff's allegations. His testimony describing limitations on memory, cognition, and future earning capacity elevate his educational history from peripheral to pivotal.

C. Plaintiff's Arguments in Opposition

Plaintiff contends that Defendants' neurologist found no current neurological impairments and thus any academic records would serve no diagnostic purpose. This argument is misguided. The relevance of the academic records is not to support a contemporaneous diagnosis, but to inform a broader understanding of Plaintiff's pre-incident cognitive baseline and vocational capacity, particularly in light of the expert vocational opinion that posits job retraining as a realistic path forward.

Moreover, Plaintiff's assertion that only treating physicians may determine the relevance of educational records to cognitive claims is unsupported. The discovery rules do not cabin relevance solely to the perspective of Plaintiff's chosen experts.

III. Conclusion and Decretal Paragraphs

Based upon the allegations of significant cognitive impairment, loss of past and future earnings, vocational disability, and the contents of Plaintiff's own deposition testimony, this Court finds that Defendants have demonstrated that the requested educational records are material and necessary to the defense.

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED, that Defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR § 3124 is GRANTED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED, that Plaintiff shall, within twenty (20) days from service of this Decision and Order with notice of entry, provide duly executed HIPAA-compliant and FERPA-compliant authorizations permitting Defendants to obtain all educational records, including but not limited to grades, attendance, disciplinary, nursing, accidents, and any individualized education plans, from Frederick Douglass Academy VII and Tompkins Cortland Community College; and it is further

ORDERED, that failure to comply with this Order may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions under CPLR §§ 3126 or 3404, as justice requires.