M.G. et al v. New York City Department of Education et al

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)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------X
M.G., et al.,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
- against :
:
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF
:
EDUCATION, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
---------------------------------------------------------------X

9/16/2020
13 Civ. 04639 (SHS) (RWL)
ORDER

ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER, United States Magistrate Judge.
This Order addresses the issues raised by State Defendants in the parties’ joint
letter dated September 14, 2020 (Dkt. 315). The issues are resolved as follows:
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 their 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 Defendants.” 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
its 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’ 64 document requests not addressed in State
Defendants’ September 23, 2020 letter. State Defendants need not address each request

1

individually, except to the extent State Defendants have withheld documents on the basis
of any asserted objection 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, custody, 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, however, 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.

_______________________________
ROBERT W. LEHRBURGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: September 16, 2020
New York, New York
Copies transmitted to all counsel of record.

2