E.W. v. New York City Department of Education

Background

The defendant asked the court to stay, or pause, the proceeding while objections to the denial of that request were pending and while the Second Circuit considered related cases. The defendant identified attorney hourly rates as the only issue in those appeals that overlapped with the application before the court. The defendant also argued that the Second Circuit might address unreasonable protraction and that a stay could increase the likelihood of settlement.

Court’s reasoning

The court explained that the Second Circuit had recognized that setting attorney hourly rates depends on many case-specific factors and that district courts have considerable discretion in doing so. It therefore considered it more likely than not that the Second Circuit would not set rates for the attorneys in this matter, but instead would state that a wide range of rates could be appropriate. The court weighed that uncertainty against the delay a stay could cause, including possible delays of many months and interference with the court’s obligation to decide motions promptly.

The court also noted that the plaintiff did not share the defendant’s view that the appeal would make settlement more likely, and the record did not allow the court to determine the likelihood of settlement. The court further observed that the transcript submitted by the defendant showed that the plaintiff in the other case had agreed to a stay. Finally, the court said that the present case did not raise an issue of unreasonable protraction because the plaintiff’s filings made vague assertions without identifying the evidentiary basis for them.

Disposition

Judge Gorenstein denied the defendant’s application for a stay.