M.Z. v. New York City Department of Education
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-09451
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
M.Z. v. New York City Department of Education: Judge Torres denied the Department’s request to bar expert material in M.Z.’s attorney-fee application.
M.Z. and the New York City Department of Education; the ruling concerns the evidence permitted in M.Z.’s attorney-fee application.
What happened
M.Z. v. New York City Department of Education involved the Department’s request to limit the evidence M.Z. could submit in a request for attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses related to disability-education proceedings and this lawsuit.
The Department asked the court to bar a proposed declaration by Steven Tasher about attorney hourly rates and to limit M.Z.’s submission to the administrative record and relevant factual declarations. The opinion does not describe a response from M.Z. beyond stating that M.Z. did not agree to the request.
Judge Analisa Torres denied the Department’s request. The opinion gives no further explanation for the ruling.
The detailed version
- M.Z. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:21-cv-09451
- Analisa Torres
- Apr. 18, 2022
Background
The plaintiff sought only attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses for legal work performed during an administrative hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and for this federal action. The defendant, the New York City Department of Education, asked the court to bar the plaintiff from submitting purported expert testimony about attorney hourly rates in the anticipated fee application.
The Request
The Department said the plaintiff intended to submit a declaration by Steven Tasher in support of the fee application. It asked that expert discovery and submissions be barred and that the plaintiff be limited to the underlying administrative record and relevant factual declarations. The Department also referred to other fee proceedings in which it had opposed similar declarations and to an earlier decision by another judge concerning such a declaration.
Ruling
The court denied the Department’s request. The opinion contains no reasoning beyond the word “DENIED” and does not decide the amount of fees or the admissibility or weight of the proposed declaration.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.