S.G. v. New York City Department of Education
- George Daniels
- 1:19-cv-11172
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In S.G. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Daniels granted in part and denied in part a request to stay proceedings over attorney billing records.
The plaintiff, S.G. on behalf of S.V., and the New York City Department of Education were affected by the stay; the plaintiff could not file a summary-judgment motion before December 30, 2020.
What happened
S.G. v. New York City Department of Education is a case seeking attorney fees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act for an earlier administrative proceeding and this federal case. The defendant asked the court to require billing records and pause the case while the parties explored settlement.
The defendant also asked the court to require production by September 25, 2020, dismiss the case if the records were not produced, prevent an early summary-judgment motion, and deny fees for responding to the request. The opinion does not state that the court ordered production by that date or dismissal for failing to meet it.
Judge George B. Daniels granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s request. He stayed the case until December 30, 2020, and barred the plaintiff from filing a summary-judgment motion before that date.
The detailed version
- S.G. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:19-cv-11172
- George Daniels
- Oct. 16, 2020
Background
The plaintiff sought only attorney fees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a federal law concerning the education of students with disabilities. The request covered $47,558.50 in fees allegedly incurred during an underlying administrative proceeding and $1,500.00 in fees allegedly incurred in the federal case as of the date of the defendant’s letter.
The defendant asked the court to require the plaintiff to produce attorney billing records, attorney and staff resumes, and the retainer agreement. The defendant represented that it had repeatedly requested those materials beginning in January 2020 and had not received them. The defendant also stated that the parties had informed the court they would begin settlement negotiations.
Requested relief
The defendant requested an order requiring production of the records by September 25, 2020, with dismissal of the case if the deadline were missed. It also requested a 90-day stay, a prohibition on filing a summary-judgment motion until 90 days after the records were produced, and denial of fees connected with producing documents or responding to the letter.
Ruling
The court stated: “Defendant’s Letter Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.” The action was stayed until December 30, 2020, and the plaintiff was prohibited from filing a summary-judgment motion before that date. The text provided does not specify which other requested relief was denied or whether the court separately ordered production of the billing records.
The order addressed the timing and management of the fee case. It did not decide whether the plaintiff was entitled to the requested attorney fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.