Archibald v. Banks
- Lewis Liman
- 1:24-cv-05919
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Archibald v. Banks, Judge Liman adopted a briefing schedule, canceled the initial conference, and relieved the parties from filing Rule 56.1 statements.
The parties to the case—Keisha Archibald, David C. Banks, and the New York City Department of Education—are affected by the canceled conference, adopted briefing schedule, and exemption from Rule 56.1 statements.
What happened
In Archibald v. Banks, the parties told the court that the case concerns an administrative decision about whether N.A.’s unilateral placement at iBrain during the 2023–2024 school year was appropriate. They said the case could be resolved through motions based on the certified administrative record.
The parties jointly asked to cancel the initial pretrial conference and said mediation and formal discovery were unnecessary. They proposed deadlines for Keisha Archibald’s motion for summary judgment and the defendants’ cross-motion and related briefing.
Judge Lewis J. Liman canceled the December 19, 2024 initial pretrial conference, adopted the proposed briefing schedule, and relieved the parties from filing Rule 56.1 statements. The order did not decide whether the placement was appropriate.
The detailed version
- Archibald v. Banks · No. 1:24-cv-05919
- Lewis Liman
- Dec. 13, 2024
Background
The case is captioned Keisha Archibald v. David C. Banks et ano. The parties described it as an appeal of an administrative decision concerning whether N.A.’s unilateral placement at iBrain during the 2023–2024 school year was appropriate. The opinion does not decide that underlying question.
The Parties’ Request
The parties jointly requested that the initial pretrial conference be canceled. They stated that an initial conference and mediation would be unnecessary because the case could be resolved through motions for summary judgment based on the certified administrative record. Both sides had received a copy of that record.
The parties also stated that no formal discovery was required beyond filing the certified administrative record. They asked the court to relieve them from filing statements required by Local Civil Rule 56.1 because the motions would be based solely on the administrative record and the case would not turn on disputed facts.
Court’s Action
Judge Lewis J. Liman canceled the initial pretrial conference scheduled for December 19, 2024, adopted the proposed briefing schedule, and relieved the parties from the requirement to file Rule 56.1 statements. The case management order set January 17, 2025, for Archibald’s motion for summary judgment and February 28, 2025, as the deadline for summary-judgment motions. It also listed the later opposition and reply deadlines proposed by the parties.
The order states that the case would not be tried to a jury and marks initial disclosures, fact discovery, expert discovery, and other discovery-related deadlines as not applicable. It does not grant or deny a motion for summary judgment and does not resolve the administrative-placement dispute.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.