M.H. v. New York City Department of Education

Background

M.H. moved to strike the Department of Education’s objections to document requests, compel discovery, and modify the Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order. The court stated that the motion was denied in part and granted in part.

Generalized objections

M.H. argued that the Department was withholding information and documents by asserting generalized objections to each document request and interrogatory without distinguishing among the requests or providing further explanation. The court explained that such responses are generally disallowed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless an objection applies to each document request.

The Department responded that it would serve amended responses to the interrogatories and document requests and did not intend to withhold documents on grounds other than attorney-client privilege. The court held that this dispute was moot and denied M.H.’s motion on this issue.

Interrogatories

M.H. challenged the Department’s responses to Interrogatories 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12. These interrogatories identified paragraphs in the Department’s answer and asked the Department to identify documents and communications concerning those answers.

The Department objected that the interrogatories were outside the scope of permissible interrogatories under Local Civil Rule 33.3(a), to the extent they sought non-documentary communications, and stated that it would produce responsive documents. The court denied M.H.’s motion because the interrogatories were outside the scope permitted at the commencement of discovery under that rule. The court also noted that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d) permits a party to answer an interrogatory by making the records needed to answer it available to the requesting party.

The court applied this ruling to Interrogatory No. 2, for which the Department stated that it would produce documents that were also publicly available. The court found that M.H. had not shown that responsive and relevant documents had not been produced and would not be produced.

Discovery schedule

Both sides sought a modification of the discovery schedule. M.H. sought more time to take depositions after document production was complete. The Department sought a schedule modification allowing additional time between the January 8, 2021 date then scheduled for completion of fact discovery and the February deadline for completing fact discovery.

The court modified the Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order to permit fact depositions through and including January 8, 2021. The court stated that, if the parties needed a further short extension, they should submit a joint proposed amended Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order.

Disposition

Judge Lewis J. Liman denied in part and granted in part the motion. The clerk was directed to close the motion listed at Dkt. No. 24.