## Facts

- Tobacco companies defending multiple products-liability suits anticipated plaintiffs’ experts would rely on epidemiological studies by researchers affiliated with Mount Sinai School of Medicine and the American Cancer Society (ACS) concerning the combined effects of cigarette smoking and asbestos exposure.
- The tobacco companies issued subpoenas duces tecum to Mount Sinai and ACS, nonparties to the underlying suits, seeking raw research data underlying specific studies to test their reliability.
- An earlier state-court proceeding had quashed broader subpoenas directed to Mount Sinai as overly broad and oppressive.
- The later federal subpoenas were narrower, tied to particular studies and cases, and included mechanisms such as redaction of identifying information.
- The district court denied motions to quash, entered a protective order allowing limited redactions, and ordered production.
- Mount Sinai and ACS did not comply with the production orders, and the district court held them in civil contempt.
- Mount Sinai and ACS appealed the contempt order and, through that posture, sought review of the underlying discovery rulings.

## Issues

1. Whether res judicata or collateral estoppel based on a prior state-court order quashing different subpoenas barred enforcement of the federal subpoenas.
2. Whether federal law recognizes a “scholar’s privilege” or similar research privilege shielding academic institutions from producing underlying research data in civil discovery.
3. Whether the subpoenas, directed to nonparties, were unduly burdensome or oppressive under federal discovery standards.
4. Whether confidentiality and privacy concerns required broader protection than the district court’s protective order provided.
5. Whether civil contempt was proper for failure to comply with the district court’s subpoena-enforcement orders.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motions to quash.
- The court held res judicata and collateral estoppel did not apply because the later subpoenas were issued in different underlying lawsuits and were substantially narrower than those previously quashed.
- The court declined to recognize a broad academic or researcher’s privilege that would categorically protect raw data from discovery.
- The court upheld the district court’s balancing of relevance, burden, and confidentiality, including the use of a protective order and redaction rather than quashing the subpoenas.
- The court affirmed the civil contempt order because the production orders were clear, noncompliance was established, and the institutions did not show they took all reasonable steps to comply.

## Legal Principles

- Prior discovery rulings do not preclude later subpoenas unless the claims and issues are identical and the requirements of res judicata or collateral estoppel are met.
- Federal courts generally disfavor creating new privileges that withhold relevant evidence absent established authority.
- Nonparties are entitled to protection from significant burden and expense, but nonparty status does not confer immunity from relevant discovery.
- When confidentiality interests are implicated, courts may permit disclosure subject to protective orders and redaction of identifying information rather than barring discovery.
- Civil contempt may be imposed to enforce subpoena-compliance orders when the order is clear, noncompliance is shown, and the contemnor fails to take all reasonable steps to comply.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit affirmed enforcement of narrowed nonparty subpoenas seeking underlying research data, rejected claim- and issue-preclusion based on a prior decision involving broader subpoenas, refused to create a categorical scholar’s privilege, approved use of protective measures to address confidentiality and burden, and upheld civil contempt for noncompliance with clear production orders.


Mount Sinai Sch. of Med. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 880 F.2d 1520 (2d Cir. 1989)