Small v. New York City Department of Education
- Gregory Woods
- 1:21-cv-01527
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Small v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Woods continued staying discovery while defendants’ motion to dismiss was briefed and resolved.
The plaintiff, Tyrell Small, and defendants New York City Department of Education and Valerie Paul, because discovery in the case remains paused while the motion to dismiss is addressed.
What happened
In Small v. New York City Department of Education, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 29, 2022. The court set May 27, 2022, as the deadline for the plaintiff’s opposition and allowed the defendants one week after service to file a reply, if any.
The court applied the rule allowing discovery to be paused for good cause. It considered the apparent strength of the motion to dismiss, the scope and burden of discovery, and possible unfair prejudice. The court found substantial grounds for the motion and no indication that the plaintiff would be unfairly harmed by continuing the pause.
Judge Woods ordered that discovery remain stayed until the defendants’ motion to dismiss was briefed and resolved. The court also stated that the parties appeared to agree that the New York City Department of Education was properly named as a defendant, so no further action was required on that issue.
The detailed version
- Small v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:21-cv-01527
- Gregory Woods
- May 2, 2022
Background
The court received the defendants’ April 29, 2022 motion to dismiss. The case caption identified the defendants as the New York City Department of Education and Valerie Paul. The plaintiff’s opposition was due by May 27, 2022, and any reply from the defendants was due one week after service of the opposition.
Discovery Stay
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), a court may stay, or pause, discovery for good cause. In deciding whether to continue a discovery stay while a motion to dismiss is pending, courts typically consider: (1) whether the defendant has strongly shown that the plaintiff’s claim lacks merit; (2) the breadth of discovery and the burden of responding; and (3) the risk of unfair prejudice to the party opposing the stay.
The court found that continuing the stay was appropriate. It stated that the motion to dismiss appeared to have substantial grounds and that there was no indication the plaintiff would suffer unfair prejudice from a stay. The court ordered that discovery remain stayed while the defendants’ motion to dismiss was briefed and resolved.
Party-Naming Issue
The defendants argued in their motion to dismiss that the New York City Department of Education was the proper party instead of the City of New York. The court noted that the City of New York was not named as a defendant. Because the amended complaint and case caption named the New York City Department of Education and Valerie Paul as the defendants, the court understood that the parties agreed the Department of Education was correctly named and that no further action was required.
Disposition
The order continued the stay of discovery pending briefing and resolution of the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It did not decide the motion to dismiss itself.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.