Klay | Nas 0)

THE CITY OF NEW YORK LAW DEPARTMENT MURIEL GOODE-TRUFANT 100 CHURCH STREET John Doody Corporation Counsel NEW YORK, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 356-4362 [email protected]

April 14, 2025 VIA ECF The request is granted. The IPTC scheduled for April 21, 2025, is Honorable Lewis J. Liman canceled. The Court adopts the briefing schedule set out below to gover United States District Judge proceedings in this case. The parties are relieved from the obligation to Daniel Patrick Moynihan Rule 56.1 statements. = United States Courthouse ft 500 Pearl St. Date: 4/15/25 YA New York, NY 10007-1312 United Sates Distt Judge Re: S.S. et al v. New York City Department of Education Case No: 25-cv-00217-LJL Dear Judge Liman: I am an Assistant Corporation Counsel representing the New York City Department of Education (“Defendant”) in the above-referenced action. I write jointly with Plaintiff's counsel, Mark Gutman, Esq., to provide the Court with the Parties’ positions regarding the initial pre-trial conference (“IPTC”) scheduled for Thursday, April 21, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. As further explained below, the Parties respectfully request that the IPTC be adjourned sine die. As this matter is an appeal of an administrative decision centered on whether Defendant’s 2022 Reevaluation was appropriate, the Parties agree that an IPTC and/or mediation would be unnecessary. The Parties believe this matter can be resolved through motions for summary judgment based upon the certified administrative record. Both parties have received a copy of the certified record. In light of the foregoing, the Parties propose the following briefing schedule for the Parties’ respective motions for summary judgment. June 5, 2025: Plaintiff to file their motion for summary judgment; July 21, 2025: Defendant to file its cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment;

August 20, 2025: Plaintiff to file their opposition to Defendant’s cross-motion and reply. September 19, 2025: Defendant to file its reply in further support of its cross-motion, if any. Please also find attached hereto the Parties’ Joint Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order. Kindly note that the Parties agree that no formal discovery is required beyond filing the certified administrative record. Moreover, it is also respectfully submitted that because the inquiry here is not whether there are disputed issues of fact, the Rule 56.1 statements should be waived. While in IDEA actions, “the parties and the court typically style the decision as a ruling on a motion for summary judgment, [] ‘the procedure is in substance an appeal from an administrative decision, not a summary judgment motion.’” Bd. Of Educ. v. C.S.,

, 165 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting M.H. v N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ.,

(2d Cir. 2012). Because the Parties’ motions will be based solely on the administrative record, the Parties jointly and respectfully request that the Court waive the submission of 56.1 statements. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Very truly yours,

John Doody

John Doody Assistant Corporation Counsel

cc: Plaintiff’s counsel (via ECF)