IN RE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY TUITION REFUND ACTION
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-03208
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In re Columbia University Tuition Refund Action: Judge Furman denied plaintiffs’ requests for a Rule 26(f) conference, limited discovery, and deadline extensions.
The plaintiffs in the tuition refund action, whose requests for a Rule 26(f) conference, limited discovery, and a deadline extension were denied; the order also directed the clerk to terminate their letter motion.
What happened
In In re Columbia University Tuition Refund Action, the plaintiffs asked the court to require the defendant to hold a required pretrial planning conference before discovery began. They also sought limited access to university materials before responding to the defendant’s motion to dismiss or amending their complaint.
The plaintiffs said the defendant’s motion made documents such as websites, catalogs, handbooks, and marketing materials relevant to whether the university had promised in-person instruction and student activities. They also asked to postpone the July 22, 2020 deadline for responding to the motion to dismiss or amending the complaint.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied all of the plaintiffs’ requests, substantially for the reasons given in the defendant’s opposition. The clerk was directed to terminate the plaintiffs’ letter motion.
The detailed version
- IN RE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY TUITION REFUND ACTION · No. 1:20-cv-03208
- Jesse Furman
- July 6, 2020
Nature of the Order
This was a procedural order on the plaintiffs’ letter motion. The court did not decide whether the plaintiffs were entitled to tuition refunds or whether the defendant had made enforceable promises about in-person instruction or student activities.
Plaintiffs’ Requests
The plaintiffs asked the court to:
- Require the defendant to participate in a conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), where the parties discuss the case and planned discovery;
- Require limited discovery before the defendant’s motion to dismiss was decided; and
- Postpone the July 22, 2020 deadline for responding to the motion to dismiss or, alternatively, amending the complaint.
The plaintiffs said defense counsel had refused to hold the Rule 26(f) conference during the requested period. They also argued that limited discovery was needed because the defendant’s motion to dismiss asserted that the plaintiffs had not identified specific documents containing promises to provide live, in-person instruction or student activities.
The plaintiffs sought documents from the defendant’s website, academic catalogs, student handbooks, marketing materials, and other publications from the preceding five years. They stated that these materials could bear on their contract theory.
Defendant’s Position as Described in the Letter
The letter described the defendant’s motion to dismiss as arguing that the plaintiffs had not shown a specific provision in a particular document establishing an enforceable promise. The defendant also argued, according to the letter, that the plaintiffs’ claims concerned aspects of campus life that had not been contractually promised and that the plaintiffs’ allegations were too conclusory under the pleading standard recognized in Ashcroft v. Iqbal.
Ruling
The court stated: “Plaintiffs’ requests are DENIED, substantially for the reasons set forth in Defendant’s opposition. See ECF No. 40.” Thus, the court denied the requests for a Rule 26(f) conference, limited pre-motion-to-dismiss discovery, and an extension of the deadline. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 38. The provided text also states that an earlier order said the plaintiffs would not receive another opportunity to amend the complaint to address issues raised by the motion to dismiss, but this order itself did not elaborate on that statement.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.