J.L. v. New York City Department of Education et al

Filing 257

ORDER granting 256 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. APPLICATION GRANTED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 5/22/2023) (ate)

Case 1:17-cv-07150-PAC-KHP Document 257
256 Filed 05/22/23
05/19/23 Page 1 of 2

THE CITY OF NEW YORK

HON. SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX
Corporation Counsel

LAW DEPARTMENT
100 CHURCH STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007

5/22/2023
PHILIP S. FRANK
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
(not for service)

May 19, 2023
BY ECF
Honorable Katharine H. Parker
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007

5/22/2023

Re: J.L., et al. v. NYC Dep’t of Education, et ano.,
No. 17-CV-7150 (PAC) (KHP)
Your Honor:
I am the Assistant Corporation Counsel in the Office of the Corporation Counsel of
the City of New York assigned to represent Defendants New York City Department of Education
(“DOE”) and DOE Chancellor David C. Banks in the above-referenced matter, in which Plaintiffs,
three students, allege that their rights were violated due to alleged systemic delays in providing
coordinated nursing, transportation, and porter services.
I write to respectfully request a two-week extension of time, from May 22, 2023
until June 5, 2023, for Plaintiffs to publicly file their motion for summary judgment with their
proposed redactions, pursuant to the Court’s Order dated May 15, 2023 (ECF No. 255). The Court
granted Plaintiffs’ first such request for an extension, and Plaintiffs consent to the instant request.
As background, on April 28, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a letter motion to seal their
motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 239.) By Orders dated May 1, 2023 (ECF No. 243) and
May 5, 2023 (ECF No. 245), the Court directed Plaintiffs, inter alia, to: (1) meet and confer with
Defendants in an effort to ensure that any proposed redactions to their moving papers were
narrowly tailored; (2) file a revised motion to seal that explains for each proposed redaction why
the redaction is necessary; and (3) publicly file a redacted version of their moving papers in
accordance with their revised motion to seal.

Case 1:17-cv-07150-PAC-KHP Document 257
256 Filed 05/22/23
05/19/23 Page 2 of 2

There are several reasons for the requested enlargement. First, Defendants recently
requested that Plaintiffs redact the email addresses and telephone numbers of certain nonparties.
The extension of time, therefore, will enable the parties to meet and confer regarding Defendants’
proposed redactions and provide Plaintiffs with sufficient time to make any such redactions upon
which the parties agree. Also, portions of at least two exhibits attached to Plaintiffs’ motion, which
I now have reviewed for the first time, are protected by the attorney-client and work-product
privileges. The extension of time, therefore, will enable me to finish my review for privilege of
the approximately 150 exhibits and allow Defendants to assert any privilege and seek to claw back
any portions of the documents. The enlargement also will enable the parties to meet and confer in
an effort to resolve any disputes regarding privilege. In the event that the parties cannot reach an
agreement, Defendants will request that the documents at issue be redacted as part of the public
filing, pending the Court’s ruling on any disputes regarding privilege.
Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request, on consent, that the Court grant an
extension of time, until June 5, 2023, for Plaintiffs to publicly file their motion for summary
judgment with their proposed redactions.
Although Plaintiffs consent to the instant request for an enlargement, Plaintiffs note
that they are not agreeing to any extension of the summary judgment filing dates. The time and
effort, however, that Defendants have expended on the redactions for Plaintiffs’ moving papers
have taken away resources from preparing Defendants’ opposition papers and cross motion for
summary judgment. As such, Defendants respectfully submit that it would be appropriate to
extend the remaining motion deadlines by two weeks.
I thank the Court for its consideration of the within.
Respectfully submitted,
s/
Philip S. Frank
Assistant Corporation Counsel
cc:

All counsel (via ECF)

-2-