Other courts in this Circuit have found that similar alleged negligence did not rise to the level required to make out an IIED claim. See, e.g., SB v. Newark Cent. Sch. Dist. No. 21-CV 6138, 2022 WL 541773, at *10 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2022) (finding that school officials' alleged knowledge of sexual abuse of a minor suffered at the hands of a teaching assistant at the school was not sufficient to plead an IIED claim).

Although the Court believes that this case presents a close call, the Court finds that the amended complaint plausibly alleges that Defendant Winn, as a municipal policymaker, had actual notice of "a pattern of constitutionally offensive acts" by Defendant Nightingale, but failed to take remedial steps in response. See Batista v. Rodriguez, 702 F.2d 393, 397 (2d Cir. 1983); see also SB on behalf of AB v. Newark Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 6:21-cv-6138, 2022 WL 541773, *8 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2022) (holding that the plaintiff plausibly alleged an equal protection claim against the municipal defendants where the complaint alleged that officials had actual notice of the individual defendants pattern of sexual harassment of students yet failed to properly investigate the allegations); Benacquista v. Spratt, 217 F. Supp. 3d 588, 601-02 (N.D.N.Y. 2016) (holding that the plaintiff plausibly alleged an equal protection claim against the municipal defendant where she alleged that the policymaking officials failed to take any meaningful corrective or preventative actions despite being warned on multiple occasions of the individual defendant's improper and increasingly sexualized misconduct). As such, the Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Monell claims against the Town.

Doe, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47053, at *34 (quoting Papelino v. Albany Coll. of Pharmacy of Union Univ., 633 F.3d 81, 89 (2d Cir. 2011)). “A defendant acts with deliberate indifference for Title IX purposes ‘when the defendant's response to known discrimination is clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.'” Posso v. Niagara Univ., 518 F.Supp.3d 688, 697 (W.D.N.Y. 2021)(quoting Roskin-Frazee v. Columbia Univ., No. 17 Civ. 2032 (GBD), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28937, 2018 WL 6523721, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2018)); see SB v. Newark Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 6:21-CV-06138 EAW, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32033, at *16-17 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2022) (“To constitute deliberate indifference, the school's conduct must be clearly unreasonable.”)(citations omitted).

Such allegations are insufficient. See, e.g., SB on behalf of AB v. Newark Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 21-CV-06138, 2022 WL 541773, at *10 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2022) (dismissing IIED claim against certain defendants where plaintiffs did not plausibly allege, inter alia, that these defendants “intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon [p]laintiffs”). At oral argument, when asked about intentionality, Plaintiff's counsel argued that Plaintiff “suffered as a result of the condition that is intentionally created by the school.”

Id. at 81 n.57; see also SB on behalf of AB v. Newark Cent. Sch. Dist., 2022 WL 541773, at *10 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2022) (“Plaintiff['s] cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress requires [him] to show a breach of duty owed to [him] which unreasonably endangered [his] physical safety, or caused [him] to fear for [his] own safety.”

Because Plaintiffs do not oppose the portion of Defendants' motion seeking an extension of time to file a late response to Plaintiffs' complaint and in the interest of justice, the Court grants this portion of Defendants' motion and will consider the motion to dismiss on its merits. SB on behalf of AB v. Newark Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 6:21-CV-06138 EAW, 2022 WL 541773, at *3 n.2 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2022) (“Because Plaintiffs . . . do not oppose this request for relief, the Court need not address whether excusable neglect has been demonstrated and allows the late filing of Moving Defendants' answer

In other words, she has now plausibly alleged that Defendants AR and BA “us[ed] a means or facility of interstate commerce within the meaning of § 2252(a)(1)” to send the pictures. See United States v. Clarke, 979 F.3d 82, 93 (2d Cir. 2020) (“The use of the Internet to move video files from [Defendant's] computer to the government agents' computer constituted transportation using a means or facility of interstate commerce within the meaning of § 2252(a)(1).”); see also SB on behalf of AB v. Newark Central School District, No. 6:21-CV-06138, 2022 WL 541773, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2022) (rejecting argument that plaintiff had failed to allege “distribution of child pornography over the internet and/or interstate dissemination, ” where complaint alleged that sexually explicit photographs were shared over Snapchat). 16