S.S. v. New York City Department of Education
- Lewis Liman
- 1:25-cv-00217
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In S.S. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Liman canceled the initial conference and set briefing for an administrative-record appeal.
S.S. and the other plaintiffs, the New York City Department of Education, and their counsel are affected by the canceled initial conference, the adopted motion schedule, and the waiver of Rule 56.1 statements.
What happened
S.S. v. New York City Department of Education concerns an appeal of an administrative decision about whether the Department’s 2022 reevaluation was appropriate. The parties told the court that the certified administrative record was available and that no additional formal discovery was needed.
The parties jointly asked to cancel the initial pretrial conference and resolve the case through motions for summary judgment based on that record. They also asked the court to waive required statements about undisputed facts because the case would not turn on factual disputes.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the request, canceled the April 21, 2025 initial conference, adopted the proposed schedule for the parties’ summary-judgment motions, and relieved the parties of the obligation to file those fact statements. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- S.S. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:25-cv-00217
- Lewis Liman
- Apr. 15, 2025
Background
The parties described this case as an appeal of an administrative decision concerning whether the New York City Department of Education’s 2022 reevaluation was appropriate. Both sides had received the certified administrative record. They jointly represented that no formal discovery was required beyond filing that record.
Requests to the Court
The parties asked the court to adjourn, or cancel without setting a new date, the initial pretrial conference scheduled for April 21, 2025. They proposed resolving the case through cross-motions for summary judgment based on the certified administrative record. They also jointly requested that the court waive the parties’ obligation to submit statements under Local Civil Rule 56.1, which ordinarily address facts that are not disputed.
Schedule and Ruling
The court granted the request. It canceled the initial pretrial conference and adopted the following briefing schedule: the plaintiffs’ summary-judgment motion was due June 5, 2025; the defendant’s cross-motion and opposition were due July 21, 2025; the plaintiffs’ opposition and reply were due August 20, 2025; and the defendant’s reply, if any, was due September 19, 2025. The court also relieved the parties from filing Rule 56.1 statements.
This order was procedural and did not rule on whether the 2022 reevaluation was appropriate or otherwise decide the merits of the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.