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 Department of Education, Judge Ho granted in part and denied in part a discovery request without prejudice for renewal.
The ruling affects Masoume Tabatabai’s discovery requests and requires the Defendants, including the New York City Department of Education and David McLaurine, to produce specified documents about McLaurine’s past incidents and complaints.
What happened
In Tabatabai v. New York City Department of Education, Masoume Tabatabai brought claims under federal, state, and city laws on behalf of her minor child, M.S., alleging that teacher and Department of Education employee David McLaurine unlawfully tackled M.S. The dispute concerned requests for documents about McLaurine’s past incidents and investigations.
The court ordered Defendants to produce documents about three prior incidents identified in the complaint. It denied the request in part as overly broad to the extent it sought documents about other incidents dating back to 2010, but allowed discovery about other incidents from the past seven years. The production must also include substantiated and unsubstantiated incidents from 2017 to the present.
Judge Dale E. Ho granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s discovery motion, without prejudice for renewal. The parties may meet and confer about a protective order if they have confidentiality concerns about the unsubstantiated-incident documents.
The detailed version
- Tabatabai v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:23-cv-05501
- Ho
- Apr. 3, 2024
Background
Masoume Tabatabai brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state and city laws on behalf of her minor child, M.S. She alleges that David McLaurine, a teacher and New York City Department of Education employee, unlawfully tackled M.S. in May 2022.
On March 15, 2024, Tabatabai sought an order requiring Defendants to produce documents concerning past incidents or investigations involving McLaurine from 2010 to the present. Defendants objected that the requests were irrelevant, overbroad because of the time period, and protected from disclosure when they involved unsubstantiated complaints.
Ruling on the Discovery Requests
The court held that documents about prior incidents were relevant because they could show whether Defendants had prior notice of McLaurine’s alleged misconduct. The court ordered Defendants to produce documents concerning the three prior incidents identified in the complaint and found those requests not unduly burdensome.
The court denied the request in part as overbroad to the extent it sought documents about any other incidents dating back to 2010. It nevertheless ordered production of documents concerning any other incidents involving McLaurine from the past seven years. The court stated that Tabatabai could renew a request for a broader period if later-developed evidence showed that broader discovery was proportional to the needs of the case.
The court also granted the requests to the extent they sought both substantiated and unsubstantiated complaints. It rejected Defendants’ argument that New York Education Law § 3020-a(4)(b) made information about expunged, unsubstantiated complaints undiscoverable. The ordered production must include unsubstantiated past incidents from 2017 to the present. The parties may meet and confer in good faith to jointly propose a protective order concerning confidentiality.
Disposition
Judge Dale E. Ho ordered that Plaintiff’s motion was granted in part and denied in part, without prejudice for renewal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.