People of the State of New York v. Niagara-Wheatfield Central School District

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
LETITIA JAMES, NEW YORK STATE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, 	DECISION
and
Plaintiff, 	ORDER
v.
21-CV-759JLS(F)
NIAGARA-WHEATFIELD CENTRAL
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant.
_____________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	LETICIA JAMES
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Attorney for Plaintiff
AMANDA MEYER,
SANDRA E. PULLMAN,
Assistant New York Attorney Generals, of Counsel
28 Liberty Street
20th Floor
New York, New York 10005
HARRIS BEACH PLLC
Attorneys for Defendant
SVETLANA K. IVY,
DANIEL R. LeCOURS,
BRIAN C. MAHONEY, of Counsel
726 Exchange Street, Suite 1000
Buffalo, New York 	14210
In this action pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a) prohibiting sex discrimination in
connection with any educational program receiving federal financial assistance, by joint
motion filed May 9, 2022 (Dkt. 33) (“Joint Motion”) the parties requested the court
approve the proposed order included with the Joint Motion allowing disclosure of certain
student records maintained by Defendant to the extent permitted by 20 U.S.C. § 1232g
Case 1:21-cv-00759-JLS-LGF Document 38 Filed 04/06/22 Page 1 of 3

2
and 34 C.F.R. § 99.31(a)(9)(ii) (“§ 99.31(a)(9)(ii)”). In an e-mail to the parties, dated
March 24, 2022, the court requested the parties’ comments on whether the court should
defer action on the Joint Motion pending determination of Defendant’s motion to dismiss
as well as the form of the notice to students’ parents required by § 1232g and §
99.31(a)(9)(ii) should the court approve the Joint Motion and the proposed disclosure
order. Defendant’s Rule 12(c) motion was filed March 10, 2022 (Dkt. 34) and a briefing
schedule was entered on March 16, 2022 (Dkt. 36). Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s
Rule 12(c) motion is due April 7, 2022; Defendant’s reply is due April 21, 2022 (Dkt. 36).
The parties filed a joint response to the court’s e-mail on April 4, 2022 (Dkt. 37). In this
response, Plaintiff stated Plaintiff believes deferral of the court’s approval of the
disclosure order proposed by the Joint Motion will unnecessarily delay discovery
presently scheduled to be completed by August 1, 2022 as provided in the current Case
Management Order (Dkt. 26) (Dkt. 37 at 2). Defendant, however, believes deferral
would be a “sound exercise of judicial discretion.” Id. 37 at 2.
The court notes that should Defendant’s motion be successful, the required
notice to the parents of the affected students and potential parental requests to the
court for “protective action” as permitted by § 99.31(a)(9)(ii) as well as possible agitation
for the affected families, would be postponed. Further, the substantive issues raised by
Defendant’s motion, including, a potential lack of subject matter jurisdiction for this
action, supports a pause in completing discovery in this action as scheduled until
Defendant’s motion is resolved. Accordingly, the court, in its discretion, finds it should
not approve the Joint Motion pending a determination of Defendant’s Rule 12(c) motion.
The court also finds, in these circumstances, further discovery should be stayed. See
Case 1:21-cv-00759-JLS-LGF Document 38 Filed 04/06/22 Page 2 of 3

3
Chinn v. Elmwood Franklin School, 2018 WL 5668510, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2018)
(magistrate judge exercising broad discretion in staying discovery pending resolution of
dispositive motion).
Finally, the court notes that its e-mail also requested the parties comment on the
form of the required notice to parent in the event the court approved the Joint Motion,
but that the parties’ response (Dkt. 37) did not include any comments in response to the
court’s request. The court is, therefore, uncertain whether the parties intend to offer any
responsive comment or leave the question to the court’s own determination.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, further consideration by the court of the Joint Motion
(Dkt. 33) is DENIED without prejudice pending determination of Defendant’s motion;
discovery in this action is hereby STAYED pending such determination.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Leslie G. Foschio
_________________________________
LESLIE G. FOSCHIO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dates: April 6, 2022
Buffalo, New York
Case 1:21-cv-00759-JLS-LGF Document 38 Filed 04/06/22 Page 3 of 3