L.B. v. New York City Department of Education
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-06626
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In L.B. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Caproni granted extensions while plaintiffs’ counsel prepared to seek withdrawal.
The order directly affected L.B., T.B., and T.B., their counsel, and the defendants by extending filing deadlines and removing counsel’s arguments about the order to show cause from the record. It did not resolve the underlying claims.
What happened
In L.B. v. New York City Department of Education, plaintiffs’ counsel asked for more time because counsel planned to file a motion to withdraw, reported a serious conflict of interest, and was undergoing surgery. Counsel also asked to delay deadlines concerning discovery, plaintiffs’ use of initials, and defendants’ answer.
Defendants did not object to the requested extensions. Counsel also discussed concerns that requiring the plaintiffs to disclose their full names could reveal sensitive educational, disability, medical, and other information. The opinion does not decide whether the plaintiffs must disclose their names or resolve the underlying claims.
Judge Valerie Caproni granted the application. She required plaintiffs’ counsel to file the withdrawal motion by March 3, 2023, adjourned the discovery-schedule deadline, the plaintiffs’ deadline to respond to the order to show cause, and the defendants’ deadline to answer until after the withdrawal motion is resolved, and struck counsel’s arguments about the order to show cause from the record.
The detailed version
- L.B. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:21-cv-06626
- Valerie Caproni
- Feb. 17, 2023
What was before the court
The court considered an application by plaintiffs’ counsel for extensions of several deadlines. The application responded to earlier orders that lifted a discovery stay and required the parties to propose a discovery schedule. Those orders also required the plaintiffs to explain why they should not have to disclose their full names because T.B. was not a minor when the action began. Defendants separately asked for more time to answer the complaint.
Reasons given for the requests
Plaintiffs’ counsel said that a serious, irreconcilable conflict of interest required counsel to file a motion to withdraw under Local Civil Rule 1.4. Counsel stated that, on the advice of ethics counsel, counsel could not address substantive applications until the court ruled on withdrawal, but could seek additional time for the plaintiffs to obtain other counsel. Counsel also cited a surgical procedure scheduled for February 17, 2023, the unavailability of another attorney in the office, and the need to communicate with the plaintiffs.
Counsel requested until March 3, 2023, to file the withdrawal motion. Counsel also requested that the deadlines for the joint discovery letter and the plaintiffs’ response to the order to show cause be delayed until the court decided the withdrawal motion. Defendants did not object and asked that their deadline to answer likewise be delayed.
Confidentiality arguments
Counsel stated that requiring the plaintiffs to disclose their full names could make their financial, disability, educational, medical, and other sensitive information public. Counsel argued that confidentiality protections for students receiving special education services do not necessarily end when a student turns eighteen and that, under New York’s treatment of rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a parent retains the ability to bring claims on behalf of the child in the circumstances described. These arguments were presented by counsel; the order did not decide the underlying confidentiality or name-disclosure issue.
Ruling
Judge Valerie Caproni granted the application. She ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to file any motion to withdraw no later than Friday, March 3, 2023. She adjourned the parties’ deadline to submit a joint letter proposing a discovery schedule, the plaintiffs’ deadline to respond to the order to show cause, and the defendants’ deadline to answer, with those deadlines postponed until the court resolves the withdrawal motion. Because counsel asserted a conflict that could not be waived, Judge Caproni struck counsel’s arguments responding to the order to show cause from the record.
This was a scheduling and case-management order. It did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, the motion to withdraw, or whether the plaintiffs must disclose their full names.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.