A. K. v. New York City Department of Education
- Katherine Failla
- 1:21-cv-04428
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In A. K. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Failla ordered a response before deciding a billing-records request and terminated the pending motion.
The plaintiff and the plaintiff’s counsel were required to respond by January 31, 2022. The defendant’s requests for billing records and a continued stay remained undecided in this order.
What happened
A. K. v. New York City Department of Education concerns a case seeking only attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses for work related to an administrative hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and for the federal case. The defendant asked the court to require the plaintiff’s counsel to provide billing records and to continue staying the case.
The court said it took seriously the defendant’s description of delayed billing records but wanted to hear from the plaintiff before deciding what steps were appropriate. It ordered the plaintiff to respond to the issues in the defendant’s letter by January 31, 2022. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 18.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla issued the January 26, 2022 order. The order did not decide whether to compel production of the billing records or whether to continue the stay.
The detailed version
- A. K. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:21-cv-04428
- Katherine Failla
- Jan. 26, 2022
Background
The defendant’s counsel submitted a letter asking the court to require the plaintiff’s counsel to provide relevant billing records by January 31, 2022. The defendant also asked the court to continue staying the case and to require a joint status letter by May 2, 2022. According to the letter, the plaintiff seeks only attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses for legal work connected to an administrative hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and for the federal action. The defendant said the requested records were needed to evaluate settlement and prepare a response to the complaint.
The letter described earlier stays and orders in related fees-only actions involving billing records, as well as the defendant’s assertion that the plaintiff’s counsel had not provided records despite prior requests and an agreed production date. These descriptions were presented by the defendant; the January 26 order did not resolve their accuracy.
Court’s Action
The court stated that it took seriously the pattern of delayed conduct described by the defendant. Before deciding the appropriate next steps, however, the court ordered the plaintiff to submit a response addressing the issues raised in the defendant’s letter by January 31, 2022.
The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 18. The order did not grant or deny the defendant’s requests for an order compelling billing records or for a further stay. It also did not decide the underlying request for attorneys’ fees.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court required a response and terminated the pending motion without deciding the merits of the fee request or the defendant’s requested relief.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.