Opinion
No: 02 Civ. 4066 (LAP) (HBP)
August 26, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On August 16, 2002, I held a conference in this matter in which plaintiff's application to compel disclosure of "Student C's" identity was discussed. Student C is the pseudonym of an individual that allegedly confirmed that plaintiff, a former school teacher, used physical force against a student, thereby contributing to plaintiff's termination. Despite the fact that plaintiff has named "Student C" as a defendant, plaintiff claimed at the Augsuut 16 conference that "Student C" does not exist.
During the August 16 conference, counsel for The New York City Board Education resisted disclosure of "Student C's" identity, claiming, among other things, that the information was a protected student record within the meaning of 20 U.S.C. § 1232g.
Since there is a pending motion to dismiss before Judge Preska, I denied plaintiff's application for discovery, without prejudice to renewal if his action survives the pending dismissal motion.
By letter dated August 16, 2002, plaintiff claims that the information sought is not a protected record and asserts that he needs the information to defend himself.
Considering plaintiff's August 16, 2002 letter as an application for reconsideration, I adhere to my ruling of August 16, 2002. If plaintiff's action survives the pending motion, his application can be addressed at that time. Since a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is limited to matters of law, plaintiff will not be prejudiced by deferring decision on his application.
Second, no charges have been brought against plaintiff in this Court. Thus, there are no charges here against which plaintiff needs to defend himself.
Finally, although plaintiff refers to his request as seeking "mandatory caption information, " I note that this phrase does not exist in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and appears to be plaintiff's unilateral creation. I know of no provision of law that automatically requires a defendant to identify co-defendants whose identity is unknown to the plaintiff.