G.P. v. New York City Department of Education
- Katherine Failla
- 1:21-cv-06511
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In G.P. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Failla adopted a revised briefing schedule and declined to hold the requested conference.
The order affected G.P. and M.P., the plaintiffs, and the New York City Department of Education by changing the deadlines for briefing the parties’ motions.
What happened
In G.P. v. New York City Department of Education, the plaintiffs requested more time to file their summary judgment motion and asked for a pretrial conference. The request cited ongoing settlement discussions and the delay in receiving the administrative record.
The court adopted the parties’ proposed revised schedule. The plaintiffs’ opening motion was due March 4, 2022; the defendant’s opposition and cross-motion were due April 4; the plaintiffs’ reply and opposition were due April 28; and the defendant’s reply was due May 18.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla said a conference was not necessary to discuss the cited Second Circuit decision and directed the parties to address it in their briefs. The court said it could order oral argument later if further discussion would help resolve the parties’ motions, and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 15.
The detailed version
- G.P. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:21-cv-06511
- Katherine Failla
- Jan. 28, 2022
Background
Counsel for G.P., individually and on behalf of M.P., asked the court for a 30-day extension of the deadline for plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion, moving the deadline from February 4 to March 4, 2022. Counsel also requested a pretrial conference. The letter cited the lack of meaningful settlement discussions, the outstanding certified administrative record from the New York State Education Department’s Office of State Review, and a later Second Circuit decision that had not been issued when the state administrative decision was made.
Court’s action
The court adopted the parties’ proposed revised briefing schedule. Plaintiffs’ opening motion was due on or before March 4, 2022. The defendant’s opposition and cross-motion were due on or before April 4, 2022. Plaintiffs’ reply and opposition were due on or before April 28, 2022, and the defendant’s reply was due on or before May 18, 2022.
The court stated that a conference was not necessary to address the identified Second Circuit decision and expected both parties to discuss that decision in their briefs. The court also stated that it could order oral argument if additional discussion of the decision or a related issue would aid resolution of the parties’ motions. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 15.
Disposition
This was a procedural scheduling order. The court adopted the revised briefing schedule and did not hold the requested conference at that time.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.