Nnebe v. City of New York
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-03860
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Nnebe v. City of New York, Magistrate Judge Cave overruled Elsie Nnebe’s discovery objections, finding Defendants’ responses sufficient.
Elsie Nnebe and the Defendants—the New York City Department of Education, Reida Barry-Grant, and Lisette Olivo—were affected by the ruling on the discovery responses.
What happened
In Nnebe v. City of New York, Elsie Nnebe, representing herself, challenged the New York City Department of Education’s responses to her second and third sets of written questions and document requests. Her claims arose from disciplinary charges concerning her supervision of students at Public School 251 during the 2019–2020 school year.
Nnebe sought information about teachers who were investigated or disciplined for using cell phones, failing to supervise classes, or other misconduct. She also sought information and documents concerning investigations by Assistant Principal Lisette Olivo. The Defendants objected and referred her to previously produced documents, while identifying Nnebe in response to requests narrowed to the relevant events.
The court found the responses sufficient and overruled Nnebe’s objections. It concluded that information about other school years and other types of misconduct was not relevant to her remaining claims. Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave also left the court’s earlier instructions to the parties in effect.
The detailed version
- Nnebe v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-03860
- Valerie Caproni
- Dec. 18, 2024
Background
Elsie Nnebe, proceeding without a lawyer, challenged the Defendants’ responses to her Second and Third Requests for written discovery. The Defendants were the New York City Department of Education, Reida Barry-Grant, and Lisette Olivo.
Nnebe’s claims arose from disciplinary charges that the Department of Education initiated against her under New York Education Law § 3020-a. The charges concerned alleged misconduct involving her supervision of students at Public School 251 in Queens during the 2019–2020 school year. The court stated that her remaining claims were limited to events before her referral to the disciplinary proceeding in December 2019, including allegations that she failed to supervise students involved in an October 2019 fight in which a student was injured.
Discovery Requests
The Second Requests included questions seeking the names of teachers, from 2016 onward, whose students used cell phones while under their care or who were charged with failing to supervise a class, along with any resulting disciplinary actions. Nnebe also sought documents used to answer those questions and a specified complaint number. The Defendants objected and referred her to previously produced documents. For the request concerning teachers charged with failure to supervise at Public School 251 during the relevant period, the Defendants identified Nnebe.
The Third Requests asked for all disciplinary investigations that Assistant Principal Olivo conducted of any teacher from 2016 until her last day as an assistant principal at Public School 251. The Defendants interpreted the request as concerning teachers at the school during the 2019–2020 school year who were charged with failing to supervise students or committing corporal punishment investigated by Olivo. They identified Nnebe and represented that she was the only teacher Olivo investigated during that school year for those matters against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated. The Defendants again referred Nnebe to previously produced documents.
Ruling
The court found that the Defendants’ responses to the Second and Third Requests were sufficient. It concluded that information about investigations in other school years or about other types of teacher misconduct was not relevant to Nnebe’s remaining claims. The court therefore overruled Nnebe’s objections to the Defendants’ responses. It also stated that the instructions in its December 16, 2024 order remained in effect. The Clerk was directed to mail Nnebe a copy of the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.