T.F. v. New York City Department of Education

S.D. New York

T.F. v. New York City Department of Education

DecidedMay 18, 2021

Docket1:20-cv-10733

StatusUnknown

This text of T.F. v. New York City Department of Education (T.F. 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

T.F. v. New York City Department of Education, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Klay | Nas 0)

THE CiTy OF NEW YORK JAMES E. JOHNSON LAW DEPARTMENT CAROLYN E. KRUK Corporation Counsel 100 CHURCH STREET cell: (646) 939-7631 NEW YORK, NY 10007 fax: (212) 356-1140 ckruk @law.nyc.gov

ENDORSED May 18, 2021 Defendants’ request for leave to file under seal the certified copy of the administrative record is granted. BY ECF It is SO ORDERED. Hon. Edgardo Ramos fs United States District Judge a A (), eos Southern District of New York Edgardo Ramos, U.S.D.J. AO Foley Square Dated: 05/18/2021 New York, NY 10007 New York, New York Re: T7.F. and S.F. individually, and on behalf of ILF. v. New York City Department of Education and Richard A. Carranza, in his official capacity as the Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, 20-CV- 10733 (ER) (KHP) Dear Judge Ramos: I am an Assistant Corporation Counsel in the Office of the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, James E. Johnson, attorney for the Defendants New York City Department of Education (DOE) and former DOE Chancellor Richard A. Carranza (collectively, “Defendants”’) in the above-referenced action. I write, with the consent of Plaintiffs’ counsel and pursuant to Rule 5.2(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to respectfully request leave to file under seal the certified copy of the administrative record underlying this action, which is brought pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act IDEA). The administrative record in this action is replete with confidential information, including the name, date of birth, and other pedigree information of the minor student, LF., on whose behalf this action is brought. This information should not be made public in compliance with Rule 5.2(a). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a). Additionally, the record contains “personally identifiable information” describing I.F.’s medical history and disabilities, in addition to LF.’s educational records and information detailing the student’s educational progress and history. These materials are confidential under the IDEA and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). 34 C.F.R. § 99.3 (defining personally identifiable information under FERPA), § 300.32 (including a “list of

personal characteristics or other information that would make it possible to identity the child with reasonable certainty” as personally identifiable information under IDEA). Additionally, as the underlying administrative proceeding is presumptively closed to the public pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 300.512(c)(2), all documents recounting the proceeding should themselves be deemed confidential. Id. (permitting parents to choose whether a hearing is open or closed to the public). “For these reasons, courts in this Circuit have routinely allowed administrative records underlying IDEA cases to be filed under seal to protect the privacy interests of minor child plaintiffs.” L.B. v. New York City Dept of Ed, 15-CV-3176, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127081, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2015)(citing C.L. v. Scarsdale Union Free Sch. Dist., 913 F. Supp. 2d 26, 30 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); A.M. ex rel. Y.N. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 964 F. Supp. 2d 270, 277 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)). Therefore, Defendants believe that this information is appropriately filed under seal pursuant to Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006) (Countervailing factors weighing in favor of sealing include, inter alia, the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure).

Accordingly, Defendants submit that the Lugosch standard is met as protecting the privacy interests of the minor student in keeping confidential that child’s education and medical history constitutes a “compelling reason” to seal the record and outweighs the public's interest in access. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 121 (countervailing factors include, among others, the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure). As such, Defendants respectfully request, with consent of Plaintiffs’ counsel, leave to file the certified administrative record in this action under seal. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Respectfully submitted,

s/ Carolyn E. Kruk Assistant Corporation Counsel cc: Lauren A. Baum (by ECF) Plaintiffs’ counsel

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

Klay | Nas 0)

THE CiTy OF NEW YORK JAMES E. JOHNSON LAW DEPARTMENT CAROLYN E. KRUK Corporation Counsel 100 CHURCH STREET cell: (646) 939-7631 NEW YORK, NY 10007 fax: (212) 356-1140 ckruk @law.nyc.gov

ENDORSED May 18, 2021 Defendants’ request for leave to file under seal the certified copy of the administrative record is granted. BY ECF It is SO ORDERED. Hon. Edgardo Ramos fs United States District Judge a A (), eos Southern District of New York Edgardo Ramos, U.S.D.J. AO Foley Square Dated: 05/18/2021 New York, NY 10007 New York, New York Re: T7.F. and S.F. individually, and on behalf of ILF. v. New York City Department of Education and Richard A. Carranza, in his official capacity as the Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, 20-CV- 10733 (ER) (KHP) Dear Judge Ramos: I am an Assistant Corporation Counsel in the Office of the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, James E. Johnson, attorney for the Defendants New York City Department of Education (DOE) and former DOE Chancellor Richard A. Carranza (collectively, “Defendants”’) in the above-referenced action. I write, with the consent of Plaintiffs’ counsel and pursuant to Rule 5.2(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to respectfully request leave to file under seal the certified copy of the administrative record underlying this action, which is brought pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act IDEA). The administrative record in this action is replete with confidential information, including the name, date of birth, and other pedigree information of the minor student, LF., on whose behalf this action is brought. This information should not be made public in compliance with Rule 5.2(a). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a). Additionally, the record contains “personally identifiable information” describing I.F.’s medical history and disabilities, in addition to LF.’s educational records and information detailing the student’s educational progress and history. These materials are confidential under the IDEA and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). 34 C.F.R. § 99.3 (defining personally identifiable information under FERPA), § 300.32 (including a “list of

personal characteristics or other information that would make it possible to identity the child with reasonable certainty” as personally identifiable information under IDEA). Additionally, as the underlying administrative proceeding is presumptively closed to the public pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 300.512(c)(2), all documents recounting the proceeding should themselves be deemed confidential. Id. (permitting parents to choose whether a hearing is open or closed to the public). “For these reasons, courts in this Circuit have routinely allowed administrative records underlying IDEA cases to be filed under seal to protect the privacy interests of minor child plaintiffs.” L.B. v. New York City Dept of Ed, 15-CV-3176, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127081, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2015)(citing C.L. v. Scarsdale Union Free Sch. Dist., 913 F. Supp. 2d 26, 30 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); A.M. ex rel. Y.N. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 964 F. Supp. 2d 270, 277 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)). Therefore, Defendants believe that this information is appropriately filed under seal pursuant to Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006) (Countervailing factors weighing in favor of sealing include, inter alia, the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure).

Accordingly, Defendants submit that the Lugosch standard is met as protecting the privacy interests of the minor student in keeping confidential that child’s education and medical history constitutes a “compelling reason” to seal the record and outweighs the public's interest in access. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 121 (countervailing factors include, among others, the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure). As such, Defendants respectfully request, with consent of Plaintiffs’ counsel, leave to file the certified administrative record in this action under seal. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Respectfully submitted,

s/ Carolyn E. Kruk Assistant Corporation Counsel cc: Lauren A. Baum (by ECF) Plaintiffs’ counsel

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

T.F. v. New York City Department of Education, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tf-v-new-york-city-department-of-education-nysd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack