Lopez v. New York City Department of Education

Background

Perry Lopez filed an employment-discrimination action against the New York City Department of Education (DOE) without a lawyer. After earlier pleadings were dismissed, the court allowed the case to continue in part and referred it to Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses for a pre-discovery settlement conference.

Judge Moses’s scheduling order required each party to attend in person with its lead trial attorney. For a government entity, the order also required attendance by a person who had knowledge of the case and responsibility for deciding what settlement authority to give counsel—not merely someone who would need to obtain approval from another person. The order warned that failure to attend with the required people could result in reimbursement of expenses or other sanctions.

The DOE’s lawyer, Traci Krasne, attended the April 27, 2023 conference with a DOE attorney in person and a Comptroller’s Office attorney by telephone. The representatives had authority only up to the DOE’s initial offer and could not obtain additional authority from their supervisor. When Judge Moses asked whether anyone present had independent authority to negotiate a settlement, Krasne said no. Judge Moses then found that the DOE had violated the scheduling order and had been unable to participate in the conference in good faith. She imposed sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f)(1)(B) and (C) against the DOE and the New York City Law Department.

Motion to Seal

The DOE asked to file its unredacted objection and exhibits privately and under seal. The redacted information concerned the Law Department’s internal settlement-authority process, confidential statements made during private settlement-conference sessions, and statements among the DOE’s representatives.

Judge Swain granted the motion to seal. She concluded that the confidentiality interests surrounding settlement-conference preparations and discussions outweighed the limited presumption of public access. Access to the unredacted filing at docket entry 100 therefore remained limited to the DOE and the Court.

Objection to Sanctions

The DOE objected under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). Under that rule, a district judge may overturn a magistrate judge’s order only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court explained that it was not reconsidering the matter from the beginning; the DOE had to show that Judge Moses made a clear mistake or failed to apply the law correctly.

The DOE argued that Krasne had followed the Law Department’s internal process for obtaining settlement authority. Judge Swain rejected that argument, explaining that compliance with an internal policy did not excuse compliance with a court order. If the DOE could not satisfy both requirements, it should have asked the court to modify the order before the conference.

The DOE also argued that its representatives were prepared to participate and acted in good faith. Judge Swain explained that a finding of bad faith was not required for a sanction based on violating a pretrial order. The representatives’ ability to seek additional authority if needed did not satisfy the order’s requirement that someone with authority to decide settlement authority attend the conference.

Finally, the DOE argued that the cases cited by Judge Moses did not support sanctions. Judge Swain found those authorities either supported sanctions in comparable circumstances or were distinguishable. The DOE therefore failed to show that the Sanctions Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Disposition

Judge Swain granted the DOE’s Motion to Seal and overruled the DOE’s Rule 72(a) Objection. The Sanctions Order remained in effect. The DOE and the Law Department were jointly responsible for paying $1,000 to the Clerk of Court and $100 directly to Lopez within 30 days. The stay previously entered in the case was lifted, and the case remained referred to Judge Moses for general pretrial management.