M.B. v. New York City Department of Education
- Katherine Failla
- 1:21-cv-10085
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In M.B. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Failla terminated the pending motion and ordered Plaintiff to respond by January 31, 2022.
M.B., Plaintiff’s counsel, and the New York City Department of Education were affected: Plaintiff had to respond by January 31, 2022, while the City’s requests for billing records and a stay remained undecided.
What happened
M.B. v. New York City Department of Education concerns a case seeking attorney fees, costs, and expenses for work connected to an administrative hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and for the federal case. The City asked the court to require Plaintiff’s counsel to provide billing records and to pause the case while the parties discussed settlement.
The City said it had repeatedly requested the records but had not received them. It argued that the records were needed to evaluate settlement and prepare a response to the complaint. These statements were made by the City in its letter; the opinion does not include Plaintiff’s response.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla said she took seriously the pattern of delay described by the City but wanted to hear from Plaintiff before deciding the next steps. She ordered Plaintiff to respond by January 31, 2022, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion. The court did not yet decide whether to require the records or pause the case.
The detailed version
- M.B. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:21-cv-10085
- Katherine Failla
- Jan. 26, 2022
Background
The plaintiff sought only attorney fees, costs, and expenses for legal work related to an administrative hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and for the federal action. The City submitted a letter asking the court to order Plaintiff’s counsel to provide relevant, contemporaneous billing records by January 31, 2022. The City also asked the court to stay, or pause, the case and require a joint status letter by May 2, 2022.
The City stated that it had requested the billing records several times, including on January 3 and January 10, 2022, but had not received them. According to the City, the records were necessary to assess settlement and develop a response to the complaint. The City also described similar fee-only cases and prior orders in which courts had required the same law firm to produce billing records. Those descriptions were the City’s assertions in its letter.
Court’s action
The court stated that it had received the City’s letter and that it took seriously the pattern of delayed conduct described by the City. Before determining the appropriate next steps, the court required Plaintiff to submit a response addressing the issues raised in the City’s letter by January 31, 2022.
The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 12. The order did not grant or deny the City’s requests to compel production of billing records or to stay the case. It also did not decide the amount or reasonableness of any attorney-fee award.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.