Opinion
18-CV-6173 (JMF) (BCM)
07-15-2022
N.J. and G.J., Plaintiffs, v. NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants.
POST-SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER
BARBARA MOSES, United States Magistrate Judge
The parties to this single-plaintiff IDEA action have now participated in two judicially supervised settlement conferences, the first (rescheduled once, at the parties' request) on February 28, 2022, and the second (rescheduled three times, at the parties' request) on July 14, 2022. (See Dkt. Nos. 108, 112, 116, 123, 127, 131, 137.) While they have made some progress towards a settlement package, the pace has been glacial, and substantial gaps between the parties' positions remain. Meantime, the district judge has repeatedly extended a litigation stay, designed to "allow the parties to explore settlement," that has now been in place for fifteen months. (See Dkt. Nos. 91, 94, 106, 114, 125, 129, 133.)
The last concrete settlement proposal was made, towards the end of the July 14 conference, by plaintiff. For the reasons discussed during the conference, defendants shall consider plaintiffs' last settlement proposal seriously and respond promptly in good faith. If the response is a fresh counter-proposal, it shall be concrete and address each of the issues under negotiation. The parties are of course encouraged to engage in additional rounds of negotiations so as to reach an agreement on all material terms of a settlement. If the parties believe that a brief further telephone conference with the undersigned magistrate judge during this process would materially advance the negotiations, they may telephone chambers to inquire about scheduling.
On or before August 8, 2022, the parties shall file a joint letter on the docket of this action advising the Court whether or not they have reached a settlement agreement in principle. If they have not, the undersigned magistrate judge will recommend, respectfully, that the stay be allowed to expire and the parties be put to their proof.
SO ORDERED.