E.E. v. New York City Department of Education
- Ho
- 1:23-cv-10302
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In E.E. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Ho granted scheduling requests, adjourned the conference, and set briefing deadlines.
The order affects E.E., I.A., and the defendants, including the New York City Department of Education, by setting deadlines and moving the initial pretrial conference. It does not resolve the underlying special-education claims.
What happened
E.E. brought this case on behalf of herself and her minor child, I.A., involving special-education services and claims under federal and state law. The case includes a challenge to an administrative decision, claims about education services and their implementation, and a request for attorney’s fees.
The parties disagreed about when discovery should begin. The defendants wanted to pause discovery while the court reviewed the administrative record, while E.E. sought discovery on claims that were not addressed in the administrative proceedings. The parties jointly asked to submit letter briefs and postpone the initial conference.
The court granted the application, moved the initial conference to March 5, 2024, and ordered the parties to file a joint status letter with a proposed case-management plan by February 27, 2024. Judge Dale E. Ho also set deadlines for the parties’ letter briefs and did not decide the underlying claims or the discovery dispute in this order.
The detailed version
- E.E. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:23-cv-10302
- Ho
- Jan. 31, 2024
Background
E.E. brought the action on behalf of herself and her minor child, I.A., a tenth-grade student with learning disabilities. The complaint asserts claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and New York State law. The claims include judicial review of a state administrative decision, systemic challenges involving special-education services, enforcement of an earlier administrative decision, alleged failures to provide services required during the case, challenges concerning the impartial hearing officer, and attorney’s fees and costs.
The parties stated that I.A. was entitled under the IDEA’s stay-put provision to continue receiving specified services while the case remained pending. They also reported a dispute about the timing of discovery. The defendants sought to divide the case and pause discovery until the court considered the administrative appeal based on the existing administrative record. E.E. opposed that approach and argued that discovery should proceed on claims that the administrative proceedings did not address or for which administrative exhaustion was not required.
The Court’s Action
The court granted the application. It adjourned the initial pretrial conference from February 6, 2024, to March 5, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. Eastern time. The parties were ordered to file a joint status letter attaching a proposed case-management plan by February 27, 2024.
The court also set the following briefing schedule for the discovery dispute: the defendants’ letter, up to five pages, was due February 9; E.E.’s response, up to five pages, was due February 16; the defendants’ reply, up to three pages, was due February 22; and E.E.’s sur-reply, up to two pages, could be filed by February 27 only if the reply raised a previously unaddressed issue.
This order addressed scheduling and briefing. It did not decide the parties’ discovery dispute, the administrative appeal, or the merits of E.E.’s claims. The order was signed by Judge Dale E. Ho.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.