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 ordered plaintiffs to respond and scheduled a conference about a proposed discovery stay.
The plaintiffs and the New York City Department of Education and David C. Banks in his official capacity, the defendants identified in the letter, were directed to participate in the response and telephone conference process.
What happened
In D.W. v. New York City Department of Education, the defendants asked for a conference before seeking to pause discovery while the court considers their motion that could end the case. The defendants said discovery was broad and burdensome and that a pause would not harm the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs opposed a stay. The defendants’ letter described disagreements about email production, search terms, privilege-log entries, class-related information, and additional depositions. The letter also said the defendants’ motion relied on several grounds for dismissal under federal procedural rules.
Judge Edgardo Ramos did not decide whether to pause discovery. He directed the plaintiffs to respond by March 18, 2025, and scheduled a telephone conference for March 20, 2025, at 10:00 a.m.
The detailed version
- D.W. v. New York City Department Of Education · No. 1:23-cv-03179
- Edgardo Ramos
- Mar. 10, 2025
What was before the court
The defendants asked for a premotion conference concerning a planned motion to stay discovery. A discovery stay would temporarily pause the exchange of information while the court considers another motion. The defendants wanted discovery paused until the court ruled on their fully dispositive motion, which they said was scheduled to be fully submitted on March 25, 2025.
Defendants’ stated reasons
The defendants argued that discovery was broad and burdensome. They described disputes over emails, search terms, privilege-log entries, spreadsheets, class-related information, and possible additional depositions. They also said they were producing emails containing spreadsheets about evaluation delays experienced by New York City Department of Education students, with personally identifying information redacted under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
The defendants argued that the plaintiffs would not suffer legally significant harm from a brief delay. They also asserted that their anticipated motion was potentially dispositive and had multiple legal grounds for dismissal under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(c). The opinion text presents these points as the defendants’ arguments; it does not decide whether they are correct.
Court’s action
Judge Edgardo Ramos directed the plaintiffs to respond by March 18, 2025, and scheduled a telephone premotion conference for March 20, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. The text does not state that the court granted or denied a discovery stay, and it does not resolve the defendants’ anticipated dispositive motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.