2023 Jane Doe 1236 Et Al V Columbia University Et Al Affidavit or Affirm 36-2

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/27/2023 04:50 PM INDEX NO.
952117/2023
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
———————————————————————X INDEX NO.:
JANE DOE #1236; JANE DOE #1252; individually 952117/2023
and on behalf of all similarly situated,
Class Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’

EMERGENCY
- against - AFFIRMATION
IN SUPPORT OF
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY; THE NEW YORK AND A RESTRAINING
PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL; COLUMBIA ORDER AND
PRESBYTERIAN MEDICAL CENTER; COLUMBIA TEMPORARY
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER; INJUNCTION
COLUMBIA-PRESBYTERIAN MEDICAL CENTER, UNDER CPLR
EAST SIDE ASSOCIATES; EAST SIDE ASSOCIATES; § 907(3)
THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN
THE CITY OF NEW YORK; COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS;
PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL PHYSICIAN SERVICES
ORGANIZATION, INC.; COLUMBIA-CORNELL
CARE LLC.; COLUMBIA CORNELL NETWORK
PHYSICIANS, INC.; SLOANE HOSPITAL FOR
WOMEN; HAROLD E. FOX; JANE BOOTH;
PATRICIA CATAPANO; JOHN C. EVANKO;
ROBERT HADDEN; ROBERT KELLY;
LEE GOLDMAN; and MARY D’ALTON,
Defendants.
———————————————————————X
Anthony T. DiPietro, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the State of
New York, affirms under penalties of perjury:
1. I am the attorney for the class plaintiffs, and I am submitting this
affirmation in support of the Order to Show Cause directing the defendants to show cause
—on an emergency basis—why an order should not be entered, in this class action,
1 of 28
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/27/2023 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 952117/2023
pursuant to CPLR § 907(3); and pending further order of the Court, preliminarily
enjoining the defendants, and any of their representatives, from communicating orally, in
writing, or otherwise, with the putative class members, and from communicating orally,
in writing, or otherwise with any members of the class who have previously responded,
or subsequently respond, to Columbia’s “Catch and Kill” letter, press releases, settlement
fund website portal, or other internet postings about Columbia’s purported settlement
fund.
2. This class action was filed on behalf of plaintiffs and thousands of
unknown class members who were sexually exploited and abused by a Columbia
University OB/GYN named Robert Hadden. Less than one month after this class action
was filed, on October 18, 2023, Columbia sent a letter to all 6,500 former patients of
Hadden (the class members), advising them of a $100 million “fund” it created to settle
the claims of class members who are not represented by counsel.
3. By any measure, under settled class action case law, Columbia’s letter
contains material omissions of law and fact, making the letter misleading, abusive,
coercive, confusing, and deceptive. Columbia’s Catch and Kill letter does not even
inform potential class members of this pending class action—an omission one New York
court has characterized as ”patently deceptive”.
4. There is urgency to this motion because the unsuspecting class members
face immediate and irreparable harm: Columbia’s letter informs class members that the
fund will open in January 2024. Therefore, in less than one week’s time, unrepresented
2 of 28
and unsuspecting class members will be manipulated by Columbia’s lawyers into settling
their claims, and signing away their legal rights, as a result of Columbia’s misleading,
exploitative, and deceptive communications sent directly to each class member’s home.
One of the goals in class action cases, indeed one of the rights of each class member, is
the receipt of accurate and impartial information. Without shame, Columbia University’s
letter violates that goal by not even informing the class members of this pending class
action—and the fact that each member has a valid cause of action, that was timely filed,
under New York’s (now closed) Adult Survivors Act look-back window.
5. Pursuant to CPLR § 907(3) this Court has the authority, prior to the Court’s
certification of the class, to insure that Columbia’s communications with class members
are accurate and impartial. Based on the patently false and coercive information
contained in the letter Columbia mailed to the class members, this Court should restrain
Columbia University from having further communications with class members—pending
the opportunity for the Court to articulate what lawful communications, if any, Columbia
may have with the class members, whose interests are so clearly adverse to Columbia in
this action.
6. On October 18, 2023, The DiPietro Law Firm filed this Class Action
pursuant to CPLR § 901 against Columbia University and its affiliated entities and
administrators (“Columbia”) asserting 18 causes of action, all of which arise out of the
sex crimes committed by Columbia University’s obstetrician/gynecologist Robert Hadden
against the university’s unsuspecting patients.
3 of 28
7. The Class Complaint asserts that the members of the putative class:
[W]ere gynecology or obstetrics patients of defendants and

their agents, servants and employees including ROBERT
HADDEN who, while in the scope of his agency, affiliation,
relationships or employment with defendants, and while
performing services for the defendants, repeatedly sexually
abused, sexually exploited and sexually assaulted each of the
Plaintiffs and other members of the Class under the guise of
medical care and treatment between 1987 and 2012, all of
which was enabled by the acts and omissions of the defendants.
Such acts and omissions constitute crimes under New York
Penal Law Article 130.” NYSCEF Doc. No. 1 at ¶63.
8. Twenty-eight days later, on or after November 15, 2023, defendant
Columbia University sent a Catch and Kill letter to approximately 6,500 former patients
—dozens of whom are active clients of our law firm—and all of whom are “class
members” as defined by federal law 28 U.S.C. § 1711(4).
9. As explained in the accompanying memorandum of law, under settled case
law regarding pending class actions, Columbia University’s letter is in several respects
misleading, abusive, coercive, and confusing. For example, Columbia’s letter provides an
incorrect date regarding New York’s Adult Survivors Act (“ASA”) filing deadline; fails to
disclose to class members that because this class action has been filed—the ASA deadline
has been tolled; and urges potential class members to contact Columbia’s lawyers
directly, to settle their claims, without ever informing the potential class members that
this class action is pending. Courts in New York have characterized such communications
by class action defendants, that fail to inform putative class members of the existence of
the class action, as “patently deceptive” and requiring remediation.
4 of 28
10. Columbia’s stated reason for sending its letter was to “provide notice”, as
mandated by a 2016 Order of the New York State Department of Health, Office of
Professional Medical Conduct. The actual reason Columbia sent the letter is far more
nefarious. Instead of providing notice of Hadden’s loss of license, and how patients can
obtain copies of their medical records (as mandated by the OPMC’s Order and New York
State Law), Columbia’s letter was, instead, a calculated attempt to perform an end-run on
the judicial process in this Class Action case.
11. Columbia’s “Catch and Kill” letter was designed to induce unsuspecting
and unrepresented patients to participate in an opaque, one-sided, and unjust “litigation
claims scheme” that is masquerading as a “patient notification” letter.
12. In short, Columbia’s letter violates countless legal standards, as detailed in
the plaintiff’s memorandum of law, because it is misleading, coercive, confusing,
contains false and incomplete information, and urges each of the putative class members
to directly contact Columbia’s lawyers (while encouraging class members to not seek
legal counsel of their own) in order to settle their claims—without ever informing the
class members of the existence of this class action—and without ever informing the
potential class members that their statute of limitations for filing a claim under the New
York Adult Survivors Act has been tolled by virtue of the filing of this Class Action back
on October 18, 2023.
13. Furthermore, Columbia’s letter explicitly talks about the closing of New
York’s Adult Survivors Act on November 23, 2023. This is inescapably wrong.
5 of 28
14. As explained more fully in the accompanying memorandum of law, under
settled law regarding pending class actions, Columbia’s letter is in several respects
misleading, abusive, coercive, and confusing. For example, Columbia’s letter
indisputably provides class members with the incorrect deadline by which recipients of
the letter are told their cases must be filed under New York’s Adult Survivors Act, (ASA).
Further, Columbia’s letter fails to disclose that because this class action has been filed,
the ASA deadline has already been tolled for all class members. Instead of providing
accurate and complete information, Columbia’s letter implies that since the ASA deadline
is about to expire, or has already expired by the time the class members receive the letter,
that the only path to Justice is to file a claim with Columbia’s settlement fund—without
even informing the potential class members that this class action is already pending.
15. As the court will learn, Columbia’s letter wasn’t physically received by
many class members until on, or just after, the incorrect ASA filing deadline which
Columbia set as November 23, 2023. Columbia’s misrepresentation of the date the ASA
window closes deprived claimants of at least two (2) full days to find an attorney and file
6 of 28
a timely case.1 Further, a reasonable person reading Columbia’s letter would be induced
into believing that Columbia’s fake fund was the only other path (aside from the ASA) to
obtain Justice. Once again, Columbia’s representations to the class members are
completely and utterly false.
16. Being told about a filing deadline that was incorrect, and believing they had
no other recourse, victims and survivors have been left with the option of either
contacting Columbia’s lawyers about the bogus fund, or just giving up hope of ever
receiving Justice.
17. The second page of Columbia’s letter introduces “Joan Loughnane” who
Columbia states will “lead an external investigation to determine the circumstances that
allowed Hadden’s abuse to continue for so long,” and instructs recipients who want to
report any experience with Hadden, or any other relevant information, “to contact Joan to
share your story. She will protect the identity of patients who experienced abuse to the
maximum extent permitted by law.” First, Columbia fails to disclose that Mrs.
1 Columbia plainly misrepresented, and moved-up, the closing of the ASA window by at least two days by
telling class members “Survivors can also reach out to an attorney to pursue remedies through the ASA, a
NYS law that sets November 23, 2023 as a deadline for certain legal actions.” See, Columbia’s Catch &
Kill Letter (emphasis added). Since November 23, 2023, was Thanksgiving Day (when courts are closed
pursuant to NY Construction. Law § 24), Columbia’s statement to patients effectively (and incorrectly)
instructed patients that they needed to file, at the latest, by midnight November 22, 2023. However, the
ASA window did not actually close on November 22, 2023, or on November 23, 2023. Instead, the ASA
window closed at midnight on November 24, 2023. As the court will note, Governor Hochul signed the
ASA into law on May 24, 2022, with cases allowed to be filed within a 1-year window that opened 6-
months after being signed into law. As such, the window to file cases opened on November 24, 2022, for a
period of 1-year. However, since November 23, 2023, is a holiday (Thanksgiving), the actual deadline to
file became the next business day (November 24, 2023). See, e.g., NY Gen. Construction Law § 25-a
(“when the time period to do an act ends on a public holiday…such act may be done on the next
succeeding business day.”). Further, under General Construction Law § 24, Thanksgiving is identified as a
statutory “public holiday,” referred to under § 25-a.
7 of 28
Loughnane is a lawyer hired by Columbia—who owes her allegiance to Columbia.
Second, Columbia fails to inform patients that the requested “reports” should only come
from women who aren’t represented by counsel—but instead encourage anyone (and
everyone) to speak with Columbia’s lawyers, without their own attorney present, and
without their own attorneys’ knowledge that these witness interviews are taking place.
18. The case law is clear and unambiguous: defendant Columbia University
and its lawyers are not allowed to contact putative class members and provide them with
incomplete, biased, and wholly inaccurate information about material matters such as
filing deadlines and available causes of action—all to the class members’ detriment (and
for the purpose of Columbia’s financial benefit).
19. As explained in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, 28 U.S.C. §
1711(4) defines a “class member” to include any person who falls within the definition of
a proposed class. Therefore, all 6,500 patients who were exposed to Robert Hadden at
Columbia University are considered to be class members for all purposes herein. The
goal of CPLR § 907(3) is to ensure that class members receive accurate and impartial
information about the class action case. Columbia has violated § 907(3) by providing
inaccurate, incomplete, coercive, abusive, confusing, and false information to each class
member herein.
20. This Court has the authority, and the duty, to restrain and regulate
communication to class members that is not accurate and impartial, pursuant to CPLR §
907(3). For example, courts have characterized as “patently deceptive” communications,
8 of 28
such as Columbia’s letter, which is sent to potential class members, but which does not
inform the class members that the Class Action exists. The court’s involvement in
remediation of a defendant’s violations of CPLR § 907(3) is not discretionary. Indeed,
courts have stated it is the “duty” of the judiciary to ensure that putative class members
are not misled or overreached by unsupervised communications from a defendant in a
Class Action Case. The law is also clear that this Court can supervise and regulate
communications with potential class members before the Court has certified the class.
21. In this case, Columbia’s deception is obvious. Regardless of whether
Columbia’s misrepresentation of the closing of the ASA’s look-back window was
negligent, or intentional, the important point is that Columbia’s advice was patently and
indisputably false. While Columbia was under no obligation to provide legal advice to the
potential class members (ex., what the deadline is to file a claim under the ASA), it was
under an obligation to provide advice that was fully and completely accurate—if advice
was being provided at all. Columbia’s failure to provide accurate advice to prospective
class members violates § 907(3), and should be remedied in a subsequent letter to class
members, to be approved by all parties and the Court.
22. Columbia’s letter also threatens to cause confusion among members of the
class regarding available settlement options, representation by counsel, and whether any
other path to Justice exists.
23. A fair reading of Columbia’s letter would lead all 6,500 recipients to
conclude that the closure of New York’s ASA look-back window on “November 23,
9 of 28
2023”[sic] means the Columbia “fund” is the sole remaining path to justice. However,
such a conclusion is simply not true because the statute of limitations for ASA claims has
been tolled for the putative class members by virtue of the filing of this Class Action—a
fact undoubtedly known to Columbia and it lawyers, but intentionally withheld from the
class members in Columbia’s letters, press releases, and online postings.
24. It is clear that Columbia’s failure to even mention the existence of the Class
Action to the Class Members was designed to “deceive patients”, in an effort to induce
them to participate in Columbia’s fund, instead of pursuing an action in court.
25. Columbia’s letter also advises class members that the fund offers an
opportunity for survivors to reach a financial settlement, without a lawyer, while telling
recipients to not contact the fund if they are represented by counsel.
26. These statements create the illusion that Columbia is trying to respect the
attorney-client relationship with represented parties—but in reality it is part of
Columbia’s scheme to try and create tension between the plaintiffs and their attorneys,
with the goal of recruiting even more women to join Columbia’s fake and opaque
settlement fund.
27. As the Court will note, Columbia’s letter does not state that a survivor’s
attorney cannot contact the fund on behalf of the survivor—which seems like a very
reasonable way to resolve a case based on the information that Columbia presented to
each patient. See, Exhibit A—Columbia’s Catch and Kill Letter.
10
10 of 28
28. However, it turns out that this reasonable interpretation of Columbia’s letter
is wholly incorrect. After contacting the fund administrator to propose that we discuss
settlement of our clients’ cases, I was informed in an email, by one of the lawyers that
Columbia hired to administer its fund: “Columbia announced that the fund is for
survivors of Hadden who have not settled a claim against Columbia and have not
retained counsel in anticipation of filing a legal claim.” (emphasis added).
29. Columbia’s letter, Columbia’s press releases about the fund, as well as
Columbia’s own fund website, all say the fund will allow survivors to “receive a financial
settlement without needing a lawyer,” but it does not state that the fund is closed to
survivors who have an attorney. See, id.
30. All of these facts show that Columbia’s goal is to try and dissuade victims
and survivors from seeking legal advice; capture unrepresented and unsophisticated
patients in Columbia’s opaque settlement fund so that Columbia’s lawyers will have the
opportunity to settle cases for cheap while being able to “dictate” the amount, and the
terms, of each fund settlement; operate the fund in a way that is completely one-sided
(Columbia’s side only), secretive, and inherently unfair to the victims and survivors; and
create doubt in the minds of everyone who isn’t participating—or isn’t allowed to
participate—in the fund.
31. Columbia’s lack of transparency, disinformation, unstated caveats, and
failure to disclose the existence of this Class Action (the filing of which is believed to
have been impetus for why Columbia created its fake fund), can only sow confusion
11
11 of 28
among the putative class members regarding how to proceed; reflects why such confusion
adversely affects the administration of justice in Class Actions; and exemplifies why
courts in Class Action cases have consistently taken action against defendants who
attempt to contact unrepresented parties in this manner.
32. Columbia’s objective is to deceptively steer victims to the settlement fund
by not informing them of this pending class action; by improperly and incorrectly
narrowing the legal remedies, and various other causes of action, that are actually
available to the recipients of Columbia’s letter; by falsely indicating that the option of a
lawsuit under the ASA closed on November 23, 2023, when in fact the filing of this class
action tolled the statute of limitations for ASA claims for all potential members of the
class; and by stating that Columbia will only settle claims with victims who have not
retained an attorney.
33. Swift action by this Court is necessary in order to prevent and mitigate the
harm which has arisen from the unsupervised, misleading, abusive, incomplete, coercive,
confusing and false information that Columbia has now communicated to all 6,500 lay
class members in this case. The law is well settled that this Court can, and should,
address Columbia’s improper communications with the class members—even before the
Court has certified the class.
34. A preliminary injunction is sought because members of the class face
irreparable injury. According to defendant Columbia, the fund will open next week, in
January 2024, and recipients of Columbia’s letters and press releases will then be coerced
12
12 of 28
by the defendant to settle their claims without even knowing about this pending class
action, and without knowing that the compensatory sums recoverable in the class action,
and in the individual cases that opt out of the class action, are far in excess of what they
can recover from Columbia’s fake settlement fund. As the memorandum of law further
indicates, the Columbia letter is coercive, abusive and misleading because, by not
informing class members of this pending class action, it deprives class members of the
information that the class action presents a more favorable option for survivors than
Columbia’s fund.
35. Columbia’s $100 million settlement fund was created for 6,500 Hadden
patients of the fund. If 1,000 people contact the fund, and are eligible for a settlement, the
average recovery will be a mere $100,000—an amount that is likely terribly
overinflated2. If all, or nearly all 6,500 individuals contact the fund, the average recovery
is reduced to $15,000 per person. Again, most likely an over-inflated recovery based
upon the historical numbers of “$2,500 per claim” that Columbia’s fund administrator has
allocated to patients in similar cases. See, Exhibit “B” at p. 66, and Exhibit “C”
(Columbia’s fund lawyer Jennifer M. Keough of JND Legal Administration, LLP.,
allocated a mere $2,500 to women at USC who were exposed to a male physician who
sexually exploited and abused them). See, also, LA Times News: https://
2 This assumes fund assets aren’t also being used to pay the two separate law firms involved in the fund
including JND Legal Administration, LLP., and Sidley Austin, LLP. Such an arrangement (paying defense
fees out of fund assets) has become a commonplace event in the cases where Mrs. Jennifer M. Keough
and JND Legal Administration, LLP., have been involved. See, e.g., https://thehill.com/regulation/court-
battles/535929-weinstein-bankruptcy-plan-approved-17m-going-to-victims/
13
13 of 28
www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-02/usc-tyndall-sex-abuse-settlement-leaves-
some-victims-bitter
36. Shamelessly, Columbia has gone as far as possible across the country to
retain USC’s Catch and Kill lawyer, Jennifer M. Keough, to act as the Claims
Administrator and oversee the allocation and distribution of money in Columbia’s bogus
settlement fund. The Court (and the Public), should be aware of Mrs. Keough’s history in
this space. See, Exhibit “C” (Keough allocated $2,500 to victims of sexual abuse)
37. In 2016, The University of Southern California (USC) retained Mrs.
Keough and her company JND Legal Administration, LLC., to administer a fund at
USC when the university exposed thousands of female patients to a male-predator
physician named George Tyndall. The USC fund is the predecessor of Columbia’s bogus
fund. See, Exhibit “B”, Declaration by USC/(Columbia) attorney Jennifer M. Keough of
JND Legal Administration, LLC. submitted in the United States District Court, Central
District of California, (Case 2:18-cv-04258-SVW-GJS) on February 12, 2019.
38. While Administering the USC fund, Mrs. Keough “successfully” coerced
hundreds of unwitting claimants to participate in the university’s fund—wherein they
recovered exactly “$ 2,500” for the sexual exploitation and abuse they endured at the
hands of a serial predator physician.
39. Because of how successful Mrs. Keough (and JND Legal Administration)
were at overreaching and shortchanging women at USC, Columbia and its administrators
chose to hire her to do the same thing here.
14
14 of 28
40. The average amount recovered by women at USC in JND’s “highest tier” of
cases, ended up receiving only $96,000—or a mere one-twelfth (8%) of the $ 1.123
million average recovery that was obtained by the women in the most recent round of
cases our firm resolved against Columbia University. The average amount recovered by
our clients who were assigned to the “highest tier,” has been in excess of $ 2.4 million—
with the lowest amount that was ever received amongst any claimant being $200,000
(which is more than double what the highest tier received from the Keough-JND fund!).
See, Exhibit “C” at Page 66 (Proposal by Jennifer M. Keough of JND Legal
Administration, LLC., to allocate the amount of $2,500. for each “Tier 1” Claimant).
41. As one might imagine, Mrs. Keough’s work on the USC cases was widely
decried as a travesty of Justice, has left hundreds of victims and survivors “bitter”, and
has been condemned in legal and medical circles, as well as in the public sector. See, LA
Times News Report: “For USC women, largest-ever sex abuse payout leaves bitterness,
vast disparities” dated May 2, 2021, by Matt Hamilton and Harriet Ryan at https://
www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-02/usc-tyndall-sex-abuse-settlement-leaves-
some-victims-bitter
As one claimant involved the USC settlement fund states:
“You think to yourself maybe this will pay for my kids’ college,”
she said. Now, racked with regret [after being duped into
participating in the fund], she said, “One thing I had been
hoping for is to get closure, and what I don’t have is closure.”
See, id.
15
15 of 28
42. Apparently impressed with the idea of being able to overreach and
financially exploit unsophisticated, unsuspecting, and unrepresented lay claimants,
Columbia University chose lawyer Jennifer M. Keough from JND Legal
Administration, LLC., to administer their own bogus settlement fund.
43. Contrast those results with, for example, the most recent round of
settlements procured by The Law Office of Anthony T. DiPietro, P.C., who negotiated a
settlement with Columbia University on behalf of 147 victims and survivors, for a total
sum of $ 165,081,000.00. This sum was arrived at by Columbia first agreeing to an
allocation of $1.123 million for each survivor, and then each survivor received a sum
based upon her individualized experience with defendants, so some received more than
$1.123 million, and others received less than that. To date, the DiPietro Law Firm has
recovered in excess of $ 250,000,000.00 from Columbia University and Robert Hadden
for 231 clients. Columbia’s total exposure is projected to be in excess of One-Billion U.S.
Dollars.
44. In this class action, plaintiffs’ counsel will proceed along those same, or
even more favorable parameters, as the prior settlement because all of the members who
are part of this Class Action are timely on the statute of limitations—under New York’s
Adult Survivors Act.
45. Beyond the financial compensation, The DiPietro Law Firm has also
procured favorable settlement terms that include: forced implementation of institution-
16
16 of 28
wide policy changes to increase patient safety; as well as no non-disclosure agreement for
our clients.
46. As is obvious, the settlements that our firm has procured from Columbia
which are in excess of $ 250,000,000.00 for 231 of our clients, is far more than
Columbia’s proposed $100 million for upwards of 6,500 claimants in Columbia’s sham
fund that was designed with the goal of paying victims and survivors $2,500 per claim.
47. Prospective class members also have the right to know they’re not relegated
to settling at all—and may choose to pursue their case before the Court and a jury—due
to the fact that the closing of the ASA look-back window doesn’t mean they are precluded
from a jury trial—as was strongly implied in Columbia’s letter. Because this class action
was filed under the ASA five (5) weeks before the look-back window closed, each class
member receives a toll of their statute of limitations under the ASA.
48. Columbia’s Letter also misleads class members, as well as past and current
clients, into believing confidentiality exists between the class members and Columbia’s
so-called “External Investigator” named Joan Loughnane from Sidley Austin, LLP. This
individual, who Columbia hired to “investigate and report” on Hadden’s abuses at
Columbia is…Columbia University’s own attorney named Joan Loughnane from a law
firm named Sidley Austin, LLP.
49. Columbia has failed to disclose to Class Members that Mrs. Loughnane’s
allegiance is to Columbia University exclusively, and not to any of Columbia’s victims
and survivors.
17
17 of 28
50. Further, Columbia’s representations to the victims and survivors, about
Columbia’s hand-picked investigator, is incredibly misleading. Columbia starts by
introducing their private lawyer—not as being Columbia’s private lawyer—but instead as
being someone who has “previously served in a variety of leadership positions in the
United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York” and who is now
conducting an “external investigation”.
51. First, an overwhelming number of lay people don’t know the difference
between the criminal justice system versus a civil justice system. Therefore, it is
reasonable for a lay person to conclude that this so-called “investigation” is a
continuation of the second criminal case (remember, there was also the 2016 prosecution
by the Manhattan DA’s Office), which has now expanded beyond Hadden, and finally
includes Columbia’s role in covering up and concealing Hadden’s abuse.
52. Second, anyone who knows or researches this case, will see that Robert
Hadden was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New
York. Again, Columbia just referenced the same government agency that prosecuted
Hadden, when talking about Mrs. Loughnane and her role in this case. “They’re going
after Columbia now, right?” is the clear implication being made by Columbia. The reason
for this is obvious: Columbia wants each of the unsuspecting Class Members to reveal
facts and information about their experiences—without counsel being present—so
Columbia can then use that information against them in the civil cases.
18
18 of 28
53. Third, the fact that Columbia calls this an investigation that is “external to
Columbia”, further implies that there is a criminal, or pseudo-criminal, component to
what Mrs. Loughnane is doing. All of this has been designed by Columbia University to
give the impression that Columbia is being forthcoming, and will finally be held to
account for their role in Hadden’s abuse. But in reality, this is not an external
investigation at all.
54. Columbia has hand-picked and retained Mrs. Loughnane for this task.
Columbia is paying Mrs. Loughnane for the work. Columbia also has full control over the
scope of the work being performed, the extent of the work performed, and the start and
end dates of the work performed. Columbia can, at any time, and for any reason, tell Mrs.
Loughnane and her law firm to stop working. Columbia can simply stop paying Mrs.
Loughnane, and the work she is performing for Columbia will also cease.
55. The idea that what Mrs. Loughnane and Sidley Austin are doing is
transparent, independent, for purposes of “building trust” or part of an “external
investigation” (as a lay person would understand that term) is a complete farce.
56. Institutions like Michigan State and Rockefeller University Hospital (and
even former Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance) have previously commissioned such
“independent investigations” which prove, 100% of the time, that any reports that result
from those “investigations” are worded in the exact way that the principals paying for the
studies want them worded. For example, when Cyrus Vance was the District Attorney
hand-picked Columbia to perform an “independent audit” of his campaign contributions
19
19 of 28
which was prompted by the public outcry over media reports of Robert Hadden’s lawyers
making timely and strategic donations to Vance’s campaign—in exchange for a favorable
plea deal being offered to Robert Hadden—Columbia reciprocated by not including
Robert Hadden’s name, story, or his criminal defense lawyer’s campaign contributions,
anywhere in the bogus-report. See, Exhibit “D” (News reports about elected officials
calling for Vance’s resignation), and Exhibit “E” (“Raising The Bar” — Columbia’s fake
report about DA Cyrus Vance’s Campaign Fund Scandal which fails to mention Robert
Hadden and Hadden’s lawyers’ donations to Vance).
57. We’ve been at this far too long to believe that Columbia and its lawyers
will just “be honest this time”. Unfortunately, Columbia’s history of deception may not
be nearly as apparent to the vast majority of unsuspecting Class Members involved in this
case—which is why stringent oversight, and remediation of Columbia’s communications,
is required by this court.
The actual text from Columbia’s sham notification letter is appended below:
Joan Loughnane, a partner at Sidley Austin LLP who previously served in

a variety of leadership positions in the United States Attorney’s Office for
the Southern District of New York, will lead an external investigation to
determine the circumstances that allowed Hadden’s abuse to continue for
so long.
If you would like to report any experience with Hadden or any other
information that may be relevant, we encourage you to contact Joan to
share your story. She will protect the identity of patients who experienced
abuse to the maximum extent permitted by law.
See, Exhibit “A”, (emphasis added).
20
20 of 28
58. The statements made by Columbia, that this is an “external investigation,”
are misleading and false. The relationship that Columbia University has with the law firm
Sidley Austin, LLP., and Joan Loughnane, is no different than the relationship Columbia
University has with any of the other law firms—including those listed at the bottom of
this motion—that Columbia has hired to attack and fight the victims and survivors in
these cases over the past 11 years.
59. Fourth, the fact that Columbia University issued an open invitation to each
of the Class Members, as well as dozens of our law firm’s clients who have filed
individual cases, to “report any experience with Hadden or any other information that
may be relevant” seeks to violate the attorney-client relationship, by actively soliciting
testimony from represented parties in this litigation.
60. The true nature of the relationship between Columbia University and its
lawyers has been intentionally hidden from the putative class members, as well as from
this firm’s (and other law firms’) current and past clients. Further, it is a fact that any
information that is gleaned by Columbia’s lawyers can, and will, be passed on to
Columbia—who is in an adversarial position with each of the survivors.
61. Finally, the recital in Columbia’s letter that their lawyers “will protect the
identity of patients who experienced abuse to the maximum extent permitted by law” is
misleading and simply false. Despite Columbia’s statements, there exists no attorney-
client relationship between Columbia’s lawyers and the survivors. Therefore, any
statement that a survivor makes to an adverse party—aka Columbia’s lawyers at Sidley
21
21 of 28
Austin—is not protected by the confidentiality that attaches to a bona fide attorney-client
relationship.
62. Undoubtedly few, if any, of the 6,500 persons who were sent this letter will
understand the fine points about lawyers and confidentiality. It is grossly (if not
intentionally) misleading for Columbia to state that the identity, or the information,
provided by a survivor, to Columbia’s lawyers, will be protected “to the maximum extent
permitted by law.” In this situation, in which there is no attorney-client relationship
between the survivors and Columbia’s lawyers, the promised protections that are being
offered “to the extent permitted by law” is zero. See, e.g., Rona v. SLS Residential Inc,
253 F.R.D. 292 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (addressing misleading information provided to potential
class members about confidentiality and public disclosure of information).
63. Finally, the undersigned’s concern about our clients being coerced into
believing “it’s safe” to speak with Columbia’s lawyers is neither academic, nor
hypothetical. I am willing to share with the Court in-camera accounts of clients who were
tricked into believing Columbia’s false promises, about the safety of their
communications with Columbia’s lawyers, as set forth in detail above.
64. As explained in the Memorandum of Law, the plaintiffs meet the standard
for a preliminary injunction because they demonstrate a probability of success on the
merits, danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and a balance of
equities in their favor.
22
22 of 28
65. There are little, if any equities, on Columbia’s side. Assuming arguendo
that Columbia had the right to inform potential class members of the creation of the fund
(an assumption which class plaintiffs do not believe is accurate in this case), it is clear
that Columbia does not have the right to do so in manner which is misleading, coercive,
confusing, or false.
66. Defendants in class actions cannot, in the words of one court, “threaten the
choice of remedies available to class members.” And yet, Columbia’s “Catch & Kill”
letter does exactly that by not informing potential class members of the pending class
action, by stating that the statute of limitations for ASA actions expired on November 23,
2023, when in fact the statute of limitations has been tolled for potential class members,
by not informing class members that there are other paths to justice in addition to the
ASA3, and by actively seeking to entice class members to participate, without counsel, in
Columbia’s opaque and one-sided fund which will provide lower compensation, and less
equity, than is available to the proposed class members in this class action—or in an
individual case.
67. “Because of the potential for abuse, a district court has both the duty and
the broad authority to exercise control over a class action and to enter appropriate orders
governing the conduct of counsel and parties.” Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 100
3 New York City’s Anti-Gender Motivated Violence Act opened a look-back window similar to the ASA,
that remains open until February 28, 2025. This information is well known to Columbia (and all 10+ of its
insurance defense firms that Columbia has hired over the past decade), but Columbia chose to withhold
this important information from each of the 6,500 patients who received the letter. In addition, plaintiffs’
statutes of limitation are all tolled under New York’s anti-fraud statutes.
23
23 of 28
(1981). New York CPLR’s Article 9 addressing class actions, is modeled on Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23. The New York courts have the same concerns as the
Supreme Court of the United States in Gulf Oil.
68. Because the Columbia letter is misleading, coercive, abusive, confusing,
and false, all 6,500 potential members of the class face immediate and irreparable harm if
they are induced to settle their claims without counsel, without knowing that the statute
of limitations for ASA actions has been tolled for potential class members, and without
even knowing this class action is pending. This Court should restrain Columbia’s
communications with members of the class until a further order of the Court can ensure
that any communications with the potential members of the class are accurate, fair, and
wholly impartial.
69. As explained in the Memorandum of Law, the plaintiffs meet the standard
for a preliminary injunction because they demonstrate a probability of success on the
merits, danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, and the balance of
equities is in their favor.
WHEREFORE, affiant requests an Order as follows:
(a) Until further Order of the Court, defendants, their lawyers, agents, servants,
employees, contractors, and all other persons acting under the jurisdiction, supervision
and/or direction of Columbia University, shall be barred from sending any further letters,
emails, or correspondence to any Hadden patients, victims, survivors, or putative class
members; and
24
24 of 28
(b) Until further Order of the Court, defendants, their lawyers, agents, servants,
and/or direction of Columbia University, shall be barred from having any oral,
telephonic, written, or other communication with any Hadden patients, victims, survivors,
or putative class members who contact defendant Columbia University or its agents in
response to any letters, press releases, internet or website postings by defendants or their
agents; and
(c) Until further Order of the Court, defendants their lawyers, agents, servants,
and/or direction of Columbia University, shall be barred from having any further
communication with any Hadden patients, victims, survivors, or putative class members;
and
(d) For such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper.
*** NO SIMILAR OR IDENTICAL RELIEF WAS PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED ***
Dated: New York, New York

December 26, 2023 The DiPietro Law Firm
By: _____________________________________
Anthony T. DiPietro, Esq.
New York Patient Safety & Sexual Exploitation
and Abuse Law Firm for Survivors !
Attorneys for Class Plaintiffs
The Woolworth Building
233 Broadway - Suite 880
New York, New York 10279
(212) 233-3600
25
25 of 28
To:
AARONSON, RAPPAPORT, FEINSTEIN & DEUTSCH, LLP.

Attorneys for Defendants
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY; THE NEW YORK & PRESBYTERIAN
HOSPITAL; COLUMBIA PRESBYTERIAN MEDICAL CENTER; COLUMBIA
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER; COLUMBIA-PRESBYTERIAN MEDICAL
CENTER, EAST SIDE ASSOCIATES; EAST SIDE ASSOCIATES; THE
TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK;
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS;
PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL PHYSICIAN SERVICES ORGANIZATION, INC.;
COLUMBIA-CORNELL CARE, LLC.; SLOANE HOSPITAL FOR WOMEN;
JANE BOOTH; PATRICIA CATAPANO; JOHN C. EVANKO; ROBERT KELLY;
LEE GOLDMAN; and MARY D’ALTON
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
212-593-8054
VASLAS, LEPOWSKY & HAUSS, LLP.

Attorneys for Defendant ROBERT HADDEN
201 Edward Curry Avenue, Ste. 100
Staten Island, NY 10314
718-761-9300
MARTIN, CLEARWATER & BELL, LLP.

Attorneys for HAROLD E. FOX
245 Main Street
White Plains, NY 10601
914-328-2969
26
26 of 28
WORD COUNT CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to the Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court, Rule 202.8-b regarding the
Length of Papers, the undersigned attorney, admitted to practice in the Courts of New York State,
certifies that upon information and belief, a reasonable inquiry, and the word count of our
office’s word-processing system used in preparing the within PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY
AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF A RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION UNDER CPLR § 907(3), that the body of the referenced document (exclusive
of the caption, signature line, addressee information, greyback, this certification, and any
attachments) contains FIVE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND NINE (5,909) words, and
as such complies with the word count limit.
_____________________________
By: Anthony T. DiPietro, Esq.
Attorney for Class Plaintiffs
27
27 of 28
Index No.: 952117 Year 2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
==========================================================================
JANE DOE #1236; JANE DOE #1252; individually and on behalf of all similarly situated,
Class Plaintiffs,
- against -
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY; THE NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL; COLUMBIA

PRESBYTERIAN MEDICAL CENTER; COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER;
COLUMBIA-PRESBYTERIAN MEDICAL CENTER, EAST SIDE ASSOCIATES; EAST SIDE
ASSOCIATES; THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK;
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS; PRESBYTERIAN
HOSPITAL PHYSICIAN SERVICES ORGANIZATION, INC.; COLUMBIA-CORNELL CARE,
LLC; COLUMBIA CORNELL NETWORK PHYSICIANS, INC.; SLOANE HOSPITAL FOR
WOMEN; HAROLD E. FOX; JANE BOOTH, PATRICIA CATAPANO; JOHN C. EVANKO,
ROBERT HADDEN; ROBERT KELLY; LEE GOLDMAN and MARY D’ALTON,
Defendants.
===========================================================================
PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF A

RESTRAINING ORDER AND TEMPORARY INJUNCTION UNDER CPLR § 907(3)
===========================================================================
LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY T. DIPIETRO, P.C.

Attorney for Class Plaintiffs
Office and Post Office Address and Telephone Number:
The Woolworth Building
233 Broadway - Suite 880
New York, New York 10279
(212) 233-3600
===========================================================================
Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1a, the undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the Courts of New
York State, certified that, upon information and belief and reasonable inquiry, (1) the contentions
contained in the annexed document are not frivolous, and that (2) if the annexed document is an imitating
pleading, (i) the matter was not obtained through illegal conduct, or that if it was, the attorney or other
persons responsible for the illegal conduct are not participating in the matter or sharing in any fee
earned therefrom, and that (ii) if the matter involves potential claims for personal injury or wrongful
death, the matter was not obtained in violation of 22 NYCRR 1200.41-a.
Dated: December 26, 2023 Signature___________________________________

Print Signer’s Signature: Anthony T. DiPietro, Esq.
===========================================================================
Service of a copy of the within is hereby admitted,
Dated, ——————————
28
28 of 28

2023 Jane Doe 1236 Et Al V Columbia University Et Al Affidavit or Affirm 36-2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2023 Jane Doe 1236 Et Al V Columbia University Et Al Affidavit or Affirm 36-2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/27/2023 04:50 PM INDEX NO.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Class Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’

Anthony T. DiPietro, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the State of

New York, affirms under penalties of perjury:

1. I am the attorney for the class plaintiffs, and I am submitting this

2. This class action was filed on behalf of plaintiffs and thousands of

the claims of class members who are not represented by counsel.

court has characterized as ”patently deceptive”.

4. There is urgency to this motion because the unsuspecting class members

Columbia University from having further communications with class members—pending

sex crimes committed by Columbia University’s obstetrician/gynecologist Robert Hadden

against the university’s unsuspecting patients.

[W]ere gynecology or obstetrics patients of defendants and

8. Twenty-eight days later, on or after November 15, 2023, defendant

members” as defined by federal law 28 U.S.C. § 1711(4).

9. As explained in the accompanying memorandum of law, under settled case

the class action, as “patently deceptive” and requiring remediation.

the judicial process in this Class Action case.

and unrepresented patients to participate in an opaque, one-sided, and unjust “litigation

claims scheme” that is masquerading as a “patient notification” letter.

12. In short, Columbia’s letter violates countless legal standards, as detailed in

the plaintiff’s memorandum of law, because it is misleading, coercive, confusing,

on October 18, 2023.

14. As explained more fully in the accompanying memorandum of law, under

misleading, abusive, coercive, and confusing. For example, Columbia’s letter

completely and utterly false.

Loughnane is a lawyer hired by Columbia—who owes her allegiance to Columbia.

for the purpose of Columbia’s financial benefit).

19. As explained in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, 28 U.S.C. §

907(3). For example, courts have characterized as “patently deceptive” communications,

remediation of a defendant’s violations of CPLR § 907(3) is not discretionary. Indeed,

are not misled or overreached by unsupervised communications from a defendant in a

21. In this case, Columbia’s deception is obvious. Regardless of whether

Columbia’s misrepresentation of the closing of the ASA’s look-back window was

members, to be approved by all parties and the Court.

other path to Justice exists.

class members in Columbia’s letters, press releases, and online postings.

them to participate in Columbia’s fund, instead of pursuing an action in court.

recipients to not contact the fund if they are represented by counsel.

attorney-client relationship with represented parties—but in reality it is part of

each patient. See, Exhibit A—Columbia’s Catch and Kill Letter.

retained counsel in anticipation of filing a legal claim.” (emphasis added).

survivors who have an attorney. See, id.

participate—in the fund.

31. Columbia’s lack of transparency, disinformation, unstated caveats, and

attempt to contact unrepresented parties in this manner.

32. Columbia’s objective is to deceptively steer victims to the settlement fund

Court has certified the class.

34. A preliminary injunction is sought because members of the class face

average recovery will be a mere $100,000—an amount that is likely terribly

(Columbia’s fund lawyer Jennifer M. Keough of JND Legal Administration, LLP.,

37. In 2016, The University of Southern California (USC) retained Mrs.

USC when the university exposed thousands of female patients to a male-predator

fund. See, Exhibit “B”, Declaration by USC/(Columbia) attorney Jennifer M. Keough of

District of California, (Case 2:18-cv-04258-SVW-GJS) on February 12, 2019.

hundreds of unwitting claimants to participate in the university’s fund—wherein they

hands of a serial predator physician.

chose to hire her to do the same thing here.

See, Exhibit “C” at Page 66 (Proposal by Jennifer M. Keough of JND Legal

As one claimant involved the USC settlement fund states:

financially exploit unsophisticated, unsuspecting, and unrepresented lay claimants,

Columbia University chose lawyer Jennifer M. Keough from JND Legal

* NO SIMILAR OR IDENTICAL RELIEF WAS PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED *