M.G. et al v. New York City Department of Education et al
| M.G. and V.M. |
| New York City Department of Education, New York City Board of Education and Dennis Walcott |
| 1:2013cv04639 |
| July 3, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Shira A. Scheindlin |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 20 U.S.C. ยง 1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
432
ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL (DKT. 429) granting in part and denying in part 420 Motion to Compel. This order resolves Plaintiffs' motion at Dkt. 420, which has been fully briefed, to compel the State Defendants to produce additional document s. The motion is granted in part and denied in part, as further set forth herein. Plaintiffs request that the State Defendants provide a log of documents withheld on grounds other than attorney-client privilege or attorney-work product. (DKt. 4 21 at 20.) The State Defendants agree to provide such log. (Dkt. 428 at 24.) Accordingly, State Defendants shall do so. To the extent not granted above, Plaintiffs' motion to compel is denied. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at Dkt. 420. SO ORDERED. Copies transmitted this date to all counsel of record. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 4/17/2024) (mml)
|
|
Filing
419
ORDER granting 418 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. The State's points are well taken about the time Plaintiff has had with the recently-produced documents, and the belated timing for the request for an extension. However, because Plaintiff's proposal does not extend the overall briefing period or compromise the State's time to respond, the extension is granted. Motion to compel due March 5, 2024; State opposition due April 5, 2024; reply due April 15, 2024. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 2/29/2024) (mml)
|
|
Filing
417
ORDER denying 416 Motion for Reconsideration re 416 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 415 Scheduling Order. filed by New York State Education Department, Shannon Tahoe. The request for reconsideration is denied. The State Defen dants have not raised anything new or previously overlooked by the Court. While the State Defendants claim great prejudice from the three-month extension necessitated principally by the City Defendants' discovery failures, there would be far gr eater prejudice to the class members if the extension were denied. That said, as State Defendants aptly point out, and as the Court previously has emphasized, class counsel has the responsibility to devote the resources necessary to properly represen t the class. The extension may not be used to broaden discovery but rather only to address existing document discovery issues, take depositions if any, and issue requests for admission if any. Notwithstanding the Court's "last and final&quo t; directive in June 2023 (Dkt. 392), which fell by the wayside due to unforeseen medical and other issues, the June 28, 2024 deadline is last and final as to all parties and will not be excused under any circumstances, whether foreseen or not. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 2/23/2024) (mml)
|
|
Filing
407
ORDER: This order resolves Plaintiffs' request for an extension of discovery based on (1) extraordinary circumstances related to attorney health issues; and (2) the pendency of Plaintiffs' motion to compel the City Defendants to produce man y categories of documents, and intended motion to compel the State Defendants to produce documents still due in response to earlier requests. (Dkt. 403.) The City Defendants consent to the request; the State Defendants oppose, particularly given the Court's previous directive that there would be no further extensions. As much as the Court is reluctant to grant any further extension, the Court is persuaded that the unanticipated extraordinary accumulation of medical issues affecting counsel at both firms representing Plaintiffs warrants an extension. The Court thus grants a two-month extension of the existing deadlines, which means that the deadline for completion of fact discovery is March 31, 2024. SO ORDERED., ( Fact Discovery due by 3/31/2024.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 12/13/2023) Copies transmitted this date to all counsel of record. (ama)
|
|
Filing
398
ORDER granting 393 Letter Motion to Compel. Having considered the parties' submissions, the prior proceedings, the magnitude and complexity of this case, and the extent of discovery sought by the parties, the Court finds good cause to grant the protective order sought by Plaintiffs in Dkt. 393 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(B) and (D). Accordingly, with respect to Plaintiffs' forthcoming production of student files, Plaintiff need produce only (i) impartial hearing files, and (ii) documents Plaintiffs intend to rely on in support of and/or defense of their claims, but without prejudice to Defendants' right to request additional specific documents that in fairness ought to be produced based on the content of specific documents Plaintiffs produce on which they intend to rely on in support and/or defense of their claims. Further, Plaintiffs are not required to reproduce or categorize the City Defendants' document production.The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at Dkt. 393. SO ORDERED. Copies transmitted this date to all counsel of record. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 10/3/2023) (mml)
|
|
Filing
388
ORDER: Based on discussions at the case management conference held via Teams on April 18, 2023, the submissions of the parties, and all prior proceedings, the case schedule is modified as follows. Copies transmitted this date to all counsel of record. ( Deposition due by 1/31/2024., Expert Discovery due by 5/19/2024., Fact Discovery due by 1/31/2024., Motions due by 7/30/2024.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 4/19/2023) (ate) Modified on 4/19/2023 (ate).
|
|
Filing
378
ORDER: Accordingly: 1. The parties are free to propose and agree to stipulate to facts at any time to narrow issues in the case. 2. With the goal of narrowing issues and potentially discovery, the parties may move for partial summary judgment before the completion of discovery. If the opposing party responds with documents or information that should have been produced previously but was not, the moving party maintains all rights to move to preclude. Alternatively, the moving party may take further relevant discovery and have its summary judgment motion denied without prejudice to renewal after additional discovery is taken. 3. The meet and confer requirement with respect to discovery disputes is modifi ed as follows: communicating by email is sufficient, although direct phone discussions are still encouraged and likely necessary at times. The Court will not tolerate conduct that protracts the meet and confer process and will entertain letter motions to compel where a party is not being sufficiently responsive. 4. All discovery deadlines remain in place unless and until extended by order of the Court. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 8/11/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
377
ORDER granting 376 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. Granted. No further extensions. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 7/28/2022) (mml)
|
|
Filing
373
ORDER: As discussed at the case management conference held on July 13, 2022: 1. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file the proposed Sixth Amended Complaint at Dkt. 367 is denied. However, Plaintiffs may stipulate to narrowing of claims, as well as substituting and adding named plaintiffs. Additionally, Plaintiffs are not precluded from litigating changed and new facts raised in the proposed Sixth Amended Complaint, nor from proposing additional subclasses as warranted, nor from co nforming the pleadings to the facts at trial. 2. By July 27, 2022, the parties shall submit any further comments, if any, on how the action should proceed in light of the discussions during the July 13 conference. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 7/13/2022) (tg)
|
|
Filing
360
ORDER granting 359 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. Extension granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 5/4/2022) (mml)
|
|
Filing
354
ORDER: As discussed during the conference held on Friday March 4, 2022, the stay currently in place is lifted. By April 4, 2022, the parties shall jointly submit a proposed schedule for completing the litigation through discovery. Plaintiff will draft an initial proposed plan and provide it to the other parties, following which the parties shall meet and confer to discuss the plan and make good faith efforts to agree. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 3/4/2022) (mml)
|
|
Filing
341
ORDER: As discussed during the conference held on June 2, 2021: 1. The parties shall continue to meet weekly to advance settlement discussions as set forth in Dkt. 339. The parties may modify the timing of when Plaintiffs will provide the pre-m eeting agenda to a time frame other than two weeks before the respective meeting if they agree it would be preferable to do so. 2. The Court will participate in a settlement conference (of no more than three hours) with the parties once per month . The parties shall cooperate with my Courtroom Deputy in scheduling the conference dates. No later than three days before each such conference, (a) the parties shall jointly file a status report, including but not limited to identifying the issue(s ) the parties would like to discuss during the conference, and (b) the parties may each submit an ex parte a letter of no more than three pages providing any additional information they think will be helpful in resolving the case, as further set forth in this order. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 6/2/2021) Copies transmitted this date to all counsel of record. (mml)
|
|
Filing
339
ORDER: As discussed during the conference held on March 23, 2021: 1. So that the parties may concentrate their attention and resources onpotential resolution of this case in whole or in part, discovery is STAYED until August 2, 2021. The stay may be continued or shortened by Court order, depending on progress, or lack of progress, of settlement discussions. 2. By April 13, 2021, Plaintiffs shall provide to Defendants a concrete proposal for resolution, identifying specific relief sought. 3. Starting the week of May 3, 2021, the parties shall hold a regularly-scheduled weekly meeting to advance settlement discussions. Two weeks in advance of the first meeting and each meeting thereafter, Plaintiffs shall circulate an agenda of matter s to be addressed. Each meeting need not address every issue to be resolved; the parties may find it useful to focus on resolving some issues before others. In that regard, the parties may find it productive to first tackle the ABA services issues. 4. The Court's Deputy Clerk will contact the parties to schedule two settlement conference session slots with the Court, one to take place in early June 2021, the other in early to mid-July 2021. The Court leaves to the parties' discretion determination of the persons the parties believe should participate to make for as productive a settlement conference as possible. If, however, a party believes it essential that a particular person of another party participate, the parties shall mee t and confer and, if a dispute remains, may seek the Court's guidance in that regard. 5. One week in advance of each scheduled settlement conference with the Court, the parties shall submit a joint letter advising the Court on the status of sett lement discussions and listing an agenda of issues they believe should be the focus of the Court's attention at the conference. In addition, one week in advance of each conference, the parties may each submit an ex parte letter of not more than five pages providing any additional information they think will be helpful in resolving the case. SO ORDERED. (Discovery due by 8/2/2021.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 3/23/2021) Copies transmitted this date to all counsel of record. (mml)
|
|
Filing
338
ORDER granting 337 Motion for Extension of Time to File. A Discovery Conference is scheduled for March 23, 2021 at 3:00 p.m,before Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger. The parties shall call theteleconference line at (888) 398-2342 and enter access code9543348. The parties are instructed to review and adhere to JudgeLehrburger's individual rules and practices. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 3/10/2021) (mml)
|
|
Filing
330
ORDER granting 326 Motion for Discovery. This Order resolves, for now, the issues concerning ESI discovery raised by the State and Plaintiffs in correspondence at Dkt. 326 and 329. 1. Both parties' requests for approval nunc pro tunc to file letters extending beyond the Courts page limit are granted. The parties should not, however, take this as license to continue to do so. 2. The State's request that Plaintiffs provide ESI subject to the same framework as Defendants i s denied. Plaintiffs apparently have produced more than 150,000 pages of ESI. Plaintiffs also have provided expansive releases allowing Defendants to obtain relevant information. The parties shall meet and confer, however, as to what exactly the State's standing concerns are and what information the individually named Plaintiffs can provide that would be minimally sufficient to make that determination. Oppressive ESI of parents and their special needs children is not warranted. 3. The State's ESI proposal is unduly limited and its search protocol overly simplistic. The suggestion that 6 ESI custodians is sufficient is not grounded in reality, and the State offers no justification for limiting ESI discovery to thos e 6 custodians. Defendants must work with Plaintiffs to identify appropriate custodians. At the same time, Plaintiffs cannot designate as custodians everyone they think may have relevant ESI; the goal is to identify a group of custodians reasonably expected to have the lion's share of responsive information. 4. The parties shall use Plaintiffs' ESI proposal as the basis for further discussion. Plaintiffs shall first consolidate, and provide to Defendants, their separate proposal s for the different subclasses into a single document. In doing so, Plaintiffs shall strive to keep the proposal streamlined and not overly complex. Plaintiffs shall provide the updated proposal to Defendants by February 8, 2021. 5. The City shou ld be included in the ESI protocol discussions so that all parties are operating with the same protocol. 6. By March 1, 2021, the parties shall have met and conferred for as many hours as it takes to agree upon a final protocol, custodians, and searc h terms. The parties need to cooperate to identify the relevant custodians and sources. The parties need to be reasonable in what they demand and about what they object. The parties need to respond to each others inquiries in timely fashion. If, af ter the requisite meet and confer, there are any remaining issues requiring the Court's attention, the parties shall jointly advise the Court of the disputed issues by March 8, 2021. 7. The State is correct that this case has dragged on for to o many years. All parties have contributed to that one way or another, even if well-intentioned. The Court wishes to avoid, but will employ, if necessary, appropriate sanctions to address undue delay. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 1/25/2021) Copies transmitted this date to all counsel of record By Chambers. (ks)
|
|
Filing
324
ORDER granting 323 JOINT LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File next status report. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 12/8/2020) (jca)
|
|
Filing
318
ORDER granting 317 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 9/22/2020) (mml)
|
|
Filing
316
ORDER: 1. State Defendants' representations that they have not located any other responsive documents; have not "withheld any responsive materials on the basis of privilege or otherwise"; and have "produced all documents in thei r possession, custody, or control that they deem responsive to Plaintiffs' discovery requests" are sufficient subject to the Court's understanding that "or otherwise" means "or any other objection asserted by State D efendants." If that is not what State Defendants mean, then State Defendants shall so notify the Court no later than September 23, 2020. For similar reasons, the Court finds State Defendants' responses to individual requests set forth in it s letter of August 17, 2020, to be sufficient. 2. By September 30, 2020, State Defendants shall provide a letter to Plaintiffs stating whether State Defendants have withheld any documents on the basis of any objections to any and all of Plaintiffs& #039; 64 document requests not addressed in State Defendants' September 23, 2020 letter. State Defendants need not address each request individually, except to the extent State Defendants have withheld documents on the basis of any asserted obje ction to that request, in which instance, State Defendants must identify the documents withheld and the basis for doing so. State Defendants must further represent whether they have produced all non-privileged documents within their possession, cus tody, or control that are responsive to the requests, again addressing specifically only those requests for which State Defendants' representation is that they have not produced all such documents. State Defendants need not identify the Bates numbers of documents that are responsive to individual requests. 3. By September 21, 2020, State Defendants shall provide to Plaintiffs a list of custodians from whom non-ESI documents have been collected. 4. By September 23, 2020, Plaintiffs shall respond to State Defendants' draft ESI protocol, including with respect to State Defendants' proposed custodians and search terms. The parties shall then meet and confer in good faith to arrive at an agreed-upon protocol. The Court notes, h owever, that Plaintiffs are correct that it was incumbent upon State Defendants to propose the custodians and terms for collection of ESI from State Defendants. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 9/16/2020) Copies transmitted to all counsel of record. (mml)
|
|
Filing
312
ORDER granting 311 Letter Motion for Local Rule 37.2 Conference. The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs' correspondence regarding Plaintiffs' concerns with the City's discovery responses. (Dkt. 311.) It is hereby ordered that: 1. By August 19, 2020, the City shall send to Plaintiffs a letter fully responding to the concerns raised by Plaintiffs regarding the City's discovery. For each document request, the City must aver whether it believes it has produced all responsive , non-privileged documents located after a reasonable search, and, if not, then, again for each request, when it will be able to do so. The City must also identify a date when it will provide a log of documents withheld on the basis of privilege or other protection. 2. By September 2, 2020, the parties shall meet and confer by telephone or videoconference as necessary to fully discuss Plaintiffs' concerns with the City's discovery as well as ESI issues. 3. By September 16, 2020, the parties shall file a joint letter of no more than six pages bringing any remaining discovery issues to the Court's attention. 4. Plaintiffs' request nunc pro tunc for permission to file the six-page letter at Dkt. 311 is granted. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 8/8/2020) Copies transmitted to all counsel of record. (mml)
|
|
Filing
310
ORDER granting 308 Letter Motion for Local Rule 37.2 Conference. By August 17, 2020, the State shall send to Plaintiffs a letter fully responding to the concerns raised by Plaintiffs regarding the State's discovery. For each document request, the State must aver whether it believes it has produced all responsive, non-privileged documents located after a reasonable search, and, if not, then, again for each request, when it will be able to do so. The State must also identify a date when it will provide a log of documents withheld on the basis of privilege or other protection. By August 31, 2020, the parties shall meet and confer by telephone or videoconference as necessary to fully discuss Plaintiffs' concerns with the State' ;s discovery as well as ESI issues. By September 14, 2020, the parties shall file a joint letter of no more than six pages bringing any remaining discovery issues to the Court's attention. Plaintiffs' request nunc pro tunc for permission to file the six-page letter at Dkt. 308 is granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 8/06/2020) Copies transmitted to all counsel of record. (ama)
|
|
Filing
297
ORDER re: 291 JOINT LETTER MOTION for Conference regarding proposed Section 504 subclasses in Plaintiffs' proposed Fifth Amended Complaint, pursuant to Court's March 12, 2020 Order addressed to Magistrate Judge Robert W. Leh rburger from Elyce N. filed by John B. King, New York State Education Department. For the reasons discussed during the conference, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiffs' request to include new allegations related to the proposed Section 504 subclasses is granted. 2. The Fifth Amended Complaint shall be filed by May 1, 2020 without prejudice to requesting an extension should that be necessary. 3. Defendants shall have 60 days from filing of the Fifth Amended Complaint to respond. SO ORDERED. ( Amended Pleadings due by 5/1/2020.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 4/23/2020) (va)
|
|
Filing
288
ORDER: Accordingly: 1. Plaintiffs' letter motion to file their proposed Fifth Amended Complaint (Exhibit A to Dkt. 281) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows. Where the Court indicates that a particular subject matter may be amended, the grant is not as to the subject matter generally but rather with respect to the specific allegations made in the proposed Fifth Amended Complaint as submitted to the parties and the Court (i.e., Exhibit A to Dkt. 281). 2. Conform Definition of Au tism Services to Certification Decision: Granted. 3. Updated Autism Statistics: Granted, so long as the statistics are consistent with the rulings herein as to which subject matter may or may not be included in the Fifth Amended Complaint, as further set forth in this Order. 8. By March 18, 2020, Plaintiffs shall provide Defendants with a revised proposed Fifth Amended Complaint that complies with this order; the parties shall then meet and confer to seek agreement on the revision; and by March 26, 2020 either (a) Plaintiffs shall file the revised proposed Fifth Amended Complaint, or (b) the parties shall file a joint letter addressing any remaining disputes. SO ORDERED. (Amended Pleadings due by 3/26/2020.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 3/12/2020) (mml)
|
|
Filing
284
ORDER: 4. Within 120 days of the City Defendants' production of City Data and IH Records, the parties will serve any written discovery requests related to those records. 5. If Plaintiffs do not seek additional individual student records relativ e to the class claims or emails related to non-NPS Class claims, all document discovery between the parties other than discovery concerning the FAC shall be fully completed by September 12, 2020, or within the deadline for the completion of productio n as a result of a motion to compel, whichever is later. 6. No party waives the right to object to any discovery request if or when it is made. 7. Fact discovery, including depositions, shall be fully completed by February 22, 2021. 8. Expert discove ry shall be fully completed by July 8, 2021. 9. By March 30, 2020, if the individual claims of M.G./Y.T. are not settled, Plaintiffs will serve discovery requests on the City Defendants concerning the non-class claims of named Plaintiffs M.G./Y.T. By inclusion of this item in the schedule, City Defendants do not waive their right to oppose such discovery and all parties reserve all rights relative to these issues. 10. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a Fifth Amended Complaint ("FAC") is filed (following either agreement by the Defendants or approval by the Court following motion practice), within 21 days of the date on which the FAC is filed, the parties shall meet and confer and propose a new schedule for discovery to the Court, as further set forth in this Order. SO ORDERED. (Document Discovery due by 9/12/2020. Expert Discovery due by 7/8/2021. Fact Discovery due by 2/22/2021.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 2/5/2020) (mml)
|
|
Filing
268
ORDER: This order addresses scheduling and the parties' considerable correspondence on that topic. The Court issues the following directives so that the parties' may conclude agreement on a revised schedule, which shall be submitted to t he Court by December 10, 2019. 1. The items on which the parties agree appear to the Court to extend document discovery further than is reasonable given the various contingent dates. The Court believes the parties need a firm date for (a) the com pletion of document discovery (i.e., the date when the parties certify that they believe they have produced all responsive, non-privileged documents found after a reasonable search), (b) fact discovery (including depositions), and (c) expert dis covery. The parties should cooperate with each other in honoring requests for confirmation that production of specific groups of documents have been completed (e.g., all SESIS documents; all individual hearing documents; documents in response to a particular request; or whatever the case may be). 2. It is a producing party's responsibility to provide complete productions; it is not the receiving party's burden to take responsibility for identifying gaps, although if a receiving p arty believes there are gaps, that party should promptly bring the issue to the producing party's attention. 3. The Court will not set an absolute "no more document requests" date. Parties must have the freedom to follow up on (a) c oncerns that certain documents that should exist and should have been produced have not been, (b) new information learned through depositions or other discovery. At the same time, this process may not be abused. Following written certification b y a party that they have produced all responsive non-privileged documents found after reasonable search, there should be no need for document discovery on new subject matter that reasonably should have been requested at an earlier point in time (o ther than in connection with an amended pleading as set forth below). This directive should obviate the "Paragraph 27" issue. 4. Plaintiff is not precluded from issuing requests for documents relevant to any new subject matter or claims in an amended complaint to the extent the amendment is allowed. 5. Requests to admit may be served any time before the close of discovery. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 11/22/2019) (rj)
|
|
Filing
112
OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' motion for class certification, appointment as class representatives, and approval of class counsel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Class certification is (1) granted in full for the NPS Class and Due Process NPS Subclass; (2) denied for the Lost Services NPS Subclass; (3) and granted, as modified herein, for the Autism Services Class and Due Process Autism Subclass. For the surviving classes and subclasses, plaintiffs' ; request for appointment as class representatives and approval of class counsel is granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this motion (Dkt. No. 92). A conference is scheduled for January 15, 2016 at 3:30PM. ( Initial Conference set for 1/15/2016 at 03:30 PM before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.) (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 1/4/2016) (cdo)
|
|
Filing
38
OPINION AND ORDER re: 25 MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint filed by Dennis Walcott, New York City Department of Education, New York City Board of Education. For the foregoing reasons, the City's motion to dismiss is granted with respect to the individual claims of E.H. and D.D. The motion is denied with respect to Y.T. as well as the systemic claims asserted by the other plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are ordered to join the State of New York within thirty (30) days or their cl aims challenging state administrative procedures will be dismissed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this motion [Docket Entry No. 25]. A conference is scheduled for February 20,2014 at 4:30 pm. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 1/21/2014) (cd)
|
|
Filing
19
OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants are enjoined from terminating funding for the services provided to Y.T. under his current educ ational placement, including the current level of 1:1 ABA home services, until a final, non-appealable order or an uncontested IEP removes those services from Y.T.'s educational placement. A conference is scheduled for August 12, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. (Status Conference set for 8/12/2013 at 05:00 PM before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.) (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 8/1/2013) (ja)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
