D.W. v. New York City Department Of Education
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:23-cv-03179
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In D.W. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Ramos scheduled a response and conference on defendants’ proposed discovery stay without ruling on it.
The plaintiffs and defendants in D.W., et al. v. New York City Department of Education, et al.; the order addressed their discovery schedule and defendants’ proposed request to pause discovery.
What happened
D.W., et al. v. New York City Department of Education, et al. concerns defendants’ request to pause discovery while the court considers their potentially case-ending motion. Defendants said continuing discovery would burden the parties and court, while plaintiffs did not agree to a pause.
Defendants argued that discovery was broad and burdensome, that plaintiffs would not suffer unfair harm from a short delay, and that their motion relied on established law. The letter also described disagreements over email searches, privilege-log entries, class-related information, and additional depositions. These were defendants’ arguments, not findings by the court.
The court directed plaintiffs to respond by March 7, 2025, and scheduled a telephone conference for March 20, 2025. Judge Edgardo Ramos did not rule in this text on whether discovery would be stayed.
The detailed version
- D.W. v. New York City Department Of Education · No. 1:23-cv-03179
- Edgardo Ramos
- Mar. 10, 2025
Background
The defendants’ counsel asked for a pre-motion conference concerning a planned motion to stay, or pause, discovery while the court considers defendants’ fully dispositive motion, identified as ECF No. 65. A dispositive motion is one that could resolve some or all of the case. The letter states that the motion relies on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(c), but the motion itself is not included in the provided text.
The letter describes discovery disputes involving search terms, emails, privilege-log entries, spreadsheets, class-related information, and possible additional testimony about a data system. Defendants argued that plaintiffs’ discovery requests were broad and burdensome. Defendants also asserted that plaintiffs would not be prejudiced by a brief pause because plaintiffs could review documents already produced, including emails defendants said they would produce.
Defendants’ Legal Argument
Defendants cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which permits a court to issue a protective order for good cause, and cases discussing stays of discovery while a potentially dispositive motion is pending. They argued that the relevant factors favored a stay because the discovery was burdensome, the delay would be brief, plaintiffs would suffer no prejudice beyond delay, and the underlying motion was supported by settled law. The opinion text does not state that the court accepted these arguments.
Court Action
The court endorsed the filing, directed plaintiffs to respond by March 7, 2025, and scheduled a telephonic pre-motion conference for March 20, 2025. The provided text does not state that the court granted or denied the requested discovery stay, and it does not decide the underlying dispositive motion. Judge Edgardo Ramos therefore took scheduling and briefing steps rather than issuing a merits ruling on the stay request.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.