Tabatabai v. New York City Department of Education
- Ho
- 1:23-cv-05501
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Tabatabai v. New York City DOE, Judge Ho ordered defendants to respond to a discovery letter without deciding whether they must produce documents.
Masoume Tabatabai and her minor child, M.S., as well as the defendants, including the New York City Department of Education, the Board of Education, and David McLaurine.
What happened
In Tabatabai v. New York City Department of Education, Masoume Tabatabai asked the court to require defendants to produce records about past incidents and investigations involving teacher David McLaurine. The letter said those records were relevant to claims brought for her minor child, M.S., including claims concerning supervision and disability discrimination.
The requested materials included records about complaints, investigations, discipline, meetings, and Office of Special Investigation investigations involving McLaurine. Defendants had objected based on relevance, privilege, confidentiality, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and a New York education-law provision.
Judge Dale E. Ho did not decide the production request in this order. He directed defendants to file a response of no more than three pages by March 22, 2024, and directed the Clerk to close ECF No. 29.
The detailed version
- Tabatabai v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:23-cv-05501
- Ho
- Mar. 18, 2024
Background
Masoume Tabatabai’s counsel submitted a letter seeking a pre-motion conference under Local Civil Rule 37.2 concerning defendants’ alleged failure to produce documents. The letter states that Tabatabai brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state and city laws on behalf of her minor child, M.S. According to the letter, the complaint alleges that David McLaurine, a teacher at P.S. 372, tackled and restrained M.S. during school hours on May 22, 2022, after M.S. left a classroom against an instruction. The letter also states that M.S. has a movement-related developmental disability.
The complaint allegedly asserts that McLaurine had a history of abusive behavior toward students, including students with disabilities, and that the New York City Department of Education and Board of Education had notice of that history. Tabatabai’s discovery requests sought documents concerning past incidents, investigations, findings, discipline, warnings, corrective or remedial action, meetings, and Office of Special Investigation investigations involving McLaurine from 2010 to the present.
Parties’ positions
The letter states that defendants objected to the requests on grounds of relevance, privilege, and confidentiality, citing the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and New York Education Law § 3020-a(4)(b). Tabatabai’s counsel argued that the materials were relevant to the claims concerning negligent retention and supervision and disability discrimination. Counsel further argued that broad assertions of privilege and confidentiality did not justify withholding entire categories of documents, that any privilege should be identified on a privilege log, and that privacy concerns could be addressed through redactions and a confidentiality order.
Order
Judge Dale E. Ho did not rule on whether defendants must produce the requested documents. Instead, the order directed defendants to file a response letter of no more than three pages by March 22, 2024. The order also requested that the Clerk close ECF No. 29. Accordingly, this order resolved the immediate filing and response procedure but did not decide the underlying discovery dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.