A.S., on behalf of A.S., a child with disabilities, and A.B., on behalf of A.S., a child with disabilities v. New York City Department of Education

S.D. New York

A.S., on behalf of A.S., a child with disabilities, and A.B., on behalf of A.S., a child with disabilities v. New York City Department of Education

DecidedApril 21, 2026

Docket1:24-cv-09689

StatusUnknown

This text of A.S., on behalf of A.S., a child with disabilities, and A.B., on behalf of A.S., a child with disabilities v. New York City Department of Education (A.S., on behalf of A.S., a child with disabilities, and A.B., on behalf of A.S., a child with disabilities v. New York City Department of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A.S., on behalf of A.S., a child with disabilities, and A.B., on behalf of A.S., a child with disabilities v. New York City Department of Education, (S.D.N.Y. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK A.S., on behalf of A.S., a child with disabilities, and A.B., on behalf of A.S., a child with disabilities, Plaintiffs, ORDER — against — 24-cv-9689 (ER) NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant.

RAMOS, D.J.: A.S. and A.B. (together “Plaintiffs”), both on behalf of their child, A.S., filed suit against the New York City Department of Education (the “DOE”), seeking funding for A.S.’s private school tuition for the 2023-24 school year. Doc. | at 24-29. On March 31, 2026, the Court issued an Opinion and Order denying Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granting the DOE’s motion for summary judgment. The Court emailed the Opinion and Order to the parties so that they could review it and suggest redactions. On April 3, 2026, both parties wrote the Court by email. Plaintiffs indicated that they did not have any proposed redactions and that they opposed the DOE’s proposed redactions. The Court granted the DOE a week extension to notify the Court of its position regarding any redactions. On April 10, 2026, the DOE emailed the Court their proposed redactions and a letter in support of those proposed redactions. In short, due to the nature of this action, which involves a claims of a minor with a disability, the DOE requests that the full names of the DOE witnesses and teachers be redacted, because, the names of the DOE employees, when coupled publicly available information, including the initials of the

minor student and the name of the school that the student attended, would allow the public to determine the identity of the minor student. The DOE argues that the privacy interests of the student constitutes a compelling reason to redact the information. On April 17, 2026, Plaintiffs emailed a letter to the Court opposing the proposed redactions. In short, Plaintiffs argue that the proposed redactions are not required by law; that courts in this District have published opinions detailing the names of DOE teachers, staff, and witnesses; and that the DOE does not articulate why the facts of this case require the redactions. The Court denies the DOEs proposed redactions. As Plaintiffs correctly identify, the cited rules and regulations do not explicitly require redaction of DOE witnesses or teachers. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5.2(a) (requiring that a minor only be identified by their initials); 34 C.F.R. § 300.32 (defining personally identifiable as information that contains the name of a child or a child’s family members; the address of a child; a personal identifier of the child such as social security number or student number; personal characteristics or “other information that would make it possible to identify the child with reasonable certainty”). Further, courts in this District regularly publish the full names of DOE witnesses, teachers, principals, and psychologists in IDEA cases. See e.g., TJ. on behalf of B.W. v. Board of Education of Mt. Vernon City School District, No. 3:17-CV-9592 (JCH), 2019 WL 13170168 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019) (publishing full names of the principal, assistant principal, psychologist, guidance counselor, and four teachers); K.M. ex rel. D.G. v. Hyde Park Central School District, 381 F. Supp. 2d 343, 346 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (publishing the school name and the full names of the school psychologist, special education teacher, and

the child’s personal psychologist). While the DOE is correct that the Court may grant redaction or sealing requests, see Lugosch v. Pyramid Company of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that courts must balance the presumption of access to court documents with countervailing factors including “the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure”), the DOE has not sufficiently demonstrated why the facts of this particular case warrant such redactions. Accordingly, the DOE’s request to redact the full names of DOE witnesses and teachers is denied. The Court will file the unredacted March 31, 2026 order on the docket.

~ EDGARDORAMOS,U.S.DJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK A.S., on behalf of A.S., a child with disabilities, and A.B., on behalf of A.S., a child with disabilities, Plaintiffs, ORDER — against — 24-cv-9689 (ER) NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant.

RAMOS, D.J.: A.S. and A.B. (together “Plaintiffs”), both on behalf of their child, A.S., filed suit against the New York City Department of Education (the “DOE”), seeking funding for A.S.’s private school tuition for the 2023-24 school year. Doc. | at 24-29. On March 31, 2026, the Court issued an Opinion and Order denying Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granting the DOE’s motion for summary judgment. The Court emailed the Opinion and Order to the parties so that they could review it and suggest redactions. On April 3, 2026, both parties wrote the Court by email. Plaintiffs indicated that they did not have any proposed redactions and that they opposed the DOE’s proposed redactions. The Court granted the DOE a week extension to notify the Court of its position regarding any redactions. On April 10, 2026, the DOE emailed the Court their proposed redactions and a letter in support of those proposed redactions. In short, due to the nature of this action, which involves a claims of a minor with a disability, the DOE requests that the full names of the DOE witnesses and teachers be redacted, because, the names of the DOE employees, when coupled publicly available information, including the initials of the

minor student and the name of the school that the student attended, would allow the public to determine the identity of the minor student. The DOE argues that the privacy interests of the student constitutes a compelling reason to redact the information. On April 17, 2026, Plaintiffs emailed a letter to the Court opposing the proposed redactions. In short, Plaintiffs argue that the proposed redactions are not required by law; that courts in this District have published opinions detailing the names of DOE teachers, staff, and witnesses; and that the DOE does not articulate why the facts of this case require the redactions. The Court denies the DOEs proposed redactions. As Plaintiffs correctly identify, the cited rules and regulations do not explicitly require redaction of DOE witnesses or teachers. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5.2(a) (requiring that a minor only be identified by their initials); 34 C.F.R. § 300.32 (defining personally identifiable as information that contains the name of a child or a child’s family members; the address of a child; a personal identifier of the child such as social security number or student number; personal characteristics or “other information that would make it possible to identify the child with reasonable certainty”). Further, courts in this District regularly publish the full names of DOE witnesses, teachers, principals, and psychologists in IDEA cases. See e.g., TJ. on behalf of B.W. v. Board of Education of Mt. Vernon City School District, No. 3:17-CV-9592 (JCH), 2019 WL 13170168 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019) (publishing full names of the principal, assistant principal, psychologist, guidance counselor, and four teachers); K.M. ex rel. D.G. v. Hyde Park Central School District, 381 F. Supp. 2d 343, 346 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (publishing the school name and the full names of the school psychologist, special education teacher, and

the child’s personal psychologist). While the DOE is correct that the Court may grant redaction or sealing requests, see Lugosch v. Pyramid Company of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that courts must balance the presumption of access to court documents with countervailing factors including “the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure”), the DOE has not sufficiently demonstrated why the facts of this particular case warrant such redactions. Accordingly, the DOE’s request to redact the full names of DOE witnesses and teachers is denied. The Court will file the unredacted March 31, 2026 order on the docket.

~ EDGARDORAMOS,U.S.DJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

A.S., on behalf of A.S., a child with disabilities, and A.B., on behalf of A.S., a child with disabilities v. New York City Department of Education, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/as-on-behalf-of-as-a-child-with-disabilities-and-ab-on-behalf-of-nysd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack