The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DS, an, infant, by and through her Parent and
Natural Guardian CS; and CS, individually, on her
own behalf,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE ROCHESTER
CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT; BARBARA DEAN-
WILLIAMS, individually and in her official
capacity as former Superintendent of the Rochester
City School District; KARL KRISTOFF,
individually and in his official capacity as General
Counsel of the Rochester City School District;
FATIMAT REID, individually and in her official
capacity as Chief of Staff of Rochester City School
District; SHEELARANI WEBSTER, individually
and in her official capacity as Principal of School
No. 58; CHARLES SMITH, individually and in his DECISION AND ORDER
official capacity as Assistant Principal of School
No. 58; KIM GARLOCK, individually and in his 19-CV-6528-EAW-MJP
official capacity as Assistant Principal of School
No. 58; AMY MARTIN, individually and in her
official capacity as a teacher at School No. 58;
NANCY RESTO, individually and in her official
capacity as Administrative Assistant to the
Principal of School No. 58; SHELLY BOYD,
individually and in her official capacity as a Parent
Liaison at School 58; JESSICA FLANDERS,
individually and in her official capacity as a
teacher at School No. 58; ELIZABETH CAVENY,
individually and in her official capacity as a
teacher at School No. 58; NICOLE MCCOY,
individually and in her official capacity as a
teacher at School No. 58; MEGAN CARLETT,
individually and in her official capacity as a
teacher at School No. 58; VALERIE
TARRAGROSSA, individually and in her official
capacity as an employee of the Center for Youth
Services on contract to the Rochester City School
District; YOLANDA WADE, individually and in
her official capacity as a district level employee of
the Rochester City School District; IDONIA
OWENS, individually and in her official capacity
as a district level employee of the Rochester City
School District; ERICA DEMING, individually and
in her official capacity as a psychologist for
Rochester City School District; RENEE JOYNER,
individually as Parent Liaison for the Rochester
City School District; and NYREE WIMS-HALL,
individually as Assistant Principle at School No.
58.
Defendants.
Pedersen, M.J. Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ application seeking a protective
order and an order compelling the production of discovery. (Notice of Motion, Aug. 29,
2023, ECF No. 125.) By operation of Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7, any opposition
to the motion was due by September 12, 2023. Seeing no opposing papers filed, the
Court took the motion under advisement on September 26, 2023. Evidently upon
seeing the order taking the matter under advisement, defense counsel contacted
chambers notifying the Court of an intention to seek leave to file responsive papers.
At 5:27 p.m., Bryan Daniels, Esq., and at 11:21 p.m. Mallory Smith, Esq., each
filed applications. Mr. Daniels seeks an extension of the motion response deadline
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 (Notice of Motion, Sept. 26, 2023, ECF No.
133). Ms. Smith seeks similar relief (Mallory K. Smith letter to the Court (Sept. 26,
2023), ECF No. 134). Ms. Smith’s application states: “Counsel for Plaintiffs was
notified of the aforementioned request, but a response has not been received to date.”
(Id at 2.) Plaintiff’s counsel timely responded and interposed no objection to an
extension of time to allow Defendants to respond, if enough time was granted to him
to reply, because Defendants have recently provided over 1,770 pages of discovery
materials, some of which may be responsive to the motion to compel.
The Court considers the matter under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b).
Rule 6 permits a district court to extend an expired deadline “if the party
failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B).
Excusable neglect is an “elastic concept.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v.
Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 392 (1993) (quoting 4AC.
Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1165 (2d ed.
1987)). The Supreme Court has found the following factors among those
relevant to evaluating excusable neglect: “[1] the danger of prejudice to
the [non-movant], [2] the length of the delay and its potential impact on
judicial proceedings, [3] the reason for the delay, including whether it
was within the reasonable control of the movant, and [4] whether the
movant acted in good faith.” Id. at 395. “[W]e and other circuits have
focused on the third factor . . . .” Silivanch v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 333
F.3d 355, 366 (2d Cir. 2003) (citing Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395).
Luo v. Baldwin Union Free Sch. Dist., 677 F. App’x 719, 720 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary
order). Upon consideration of the factors set out above, the Court finds that
Defendants have provided a sufficient basis for granting each application for an
extension. Accordingly, the Court
GRANTS Valerie Torregrossa’s application (ECF No. 133) for an extension of
time; and
GRANTS the application (ECF No. 134) of
Rochester City School District, Board of Education of the Rochester City
School District, Barbara Deane-Williams, Individually and in Her Official Capacity
as Former Superintendent of the Rochester City School District, Fatimat Reid,
Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Chief of Staff of Rochester City School
District, Sheelarani Webster, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Principal
of School No. 58, Charles Smith, Individually and in His Official Capacity as
Assistant Principal of School No. 58, Kim Garlock, Individually and in His [sic]
Official Capacity as Assistant Principal of School No. 58, Amy Martin, Individually
and in Her Official Capacity as a Teacher at School No. 58, Jessica Flanders,
Individually and in Her Official Capacity as a Teacher at School No. 58, Megan
Carlett, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as a Teacher at School No. 58,
Yolanda Wade [sic], Individually and in her Official Capacity as a District Level
Employee of the Rochester City School District, Idonia Owens, Individually and in
Her Official Capacity as a District Level Employee of the Rochester City School
District, Erica Deming, Individually and in her Official Capacity as a Psychologist for
Rochester City School District, Renee Joyner, individually as Parent Liaison for the
Rochester City School District, and Nyree Wims-Hall, individually as Assistant
Principal at School No. 58 (collectively, “RCSD Defendants”) for an extension of time
to file a response; and
ORDERS, that collectively, Defendants’ responses are to be filed and served by
October 13, 2023; and
ORDERS, that Plaintiffs’ reply, if any, is to be filed and served by November
3, 2023; and
ORDERS, that any request to extend these deadlines must comply with Fed.
R. Civ. P. 6. /
IT IS SO ORDERED. / ) ul (fare
MARK W. PEDERSEN
Dated: September 28, 2023 U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Rochester, New York