K.S. v. City of New York

Background

The opinion concerns two consolidated actions. Judge Jed S. Rakoff’s September 30, 2024 order limited the plaintiffs’ discovery about educational policies and practices to the 2017–18 school year and later. Judge Rakoff then referred other ongoing discovery disputes to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave.

On November 1, Judge Cave issued an order that extended the discovery schedule, directed the City Defendants to prepare representatives for depositions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), and extended the deadline for responding to the plaintiffs’ second set of document requests. The City Defendants later sought reconsideration of that order. They asked the court to limit all outstanding discovery from the New York City Department of Education and other sources to the period beginning in 2014.

Parties’ Arguments

The City Defendants argued that requests for materials from before 2014 were untimely and that the court should follow Judge Rakoff’s September 30 order. They also argued that additional discovery was unnecessary because the plaintiffs had already prevailed in administrative proceedings concerning educational claims for the relevant years.

The plaintiffs argued that the motion improperly attempted to bypass the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and present statute-of-limitations defenses through a discovery motion. They also argued that state law entitled them to the requested records regardless of when the lawsuit was filed.

Ruling

Judge Cave granted the motion for reconsideration. She found that, when issuing the November 1 order, she had overlooked Judge Rakoff’s ruling limiting discovery about educational policies and practices to the 2017–18 school year and later. The opinion states that Judge Rakoff’s ruling is binding in these actions and that overlooking it justified reconsideration.

The court ordered the parties to follow the November 1 order only to the extent that it does not conflict with the September 30 order. The September 30 order’s statement that the plaintiffs may later argue that the statute of limitations should be paused for education-related claims on other grounds, including exceptions under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, also remains in effect. The court directed the clerk to close the reconsideration-motion entries in both cases.