Order | Filed: September 09, 2026
| Entered: September 09, 2026
Pemberton v. Westbury Union Free School District et al
Civil Rights: Jobs | New York Eastern
Order(Other)
ORDER: On 8/25/2026, Plaintiff filed a letter motion to amend her complaint and included what she represented was a "marked up copy" of the new pleading. DE 24 . The proposed amended complaint is approximately 377 pages long. See DE 24 -3. Local Civil Rule 15.1 requires that "[a]ll motions made by a represented party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) or (d) must also include as an exhibit... (2) a version of the proposed pleading that showsthrough redlining, underlining, strikeouts, or other similar typographic methodall differences from the pleading that it is intended to amend or supplement." See Garcia Jimenez v. Cnty. of Suffolk, No. 23-CV-9476(AMD)(SIL), 2026 WL 468280 at *3-4 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2026), report and recommendation adopted, No. 23-CV-9476 (AMD) (SIL), 2026 WL 445200 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026) (proposed amended complaint dismissed without prejudice due to failure to comply with Local Rule 15.1). On 9/2/2026, Plaintiff advised the Court that the aforementioned "marked up copy" was "not a 'technical' redlined proposed amended complaint" and, in fact, the proposed changes were "documented in bold and with notations [sic] the changes that were made." DE 25 at 1. However, instead of simply now providing Defendants and the Court with a redlined version, Plaintiff chose to submit a legal argument that the prior submission complied with Local Civil Rule 15.1 by citing to state court cases and providing the Court with a 15-page declaration detailing approximately 140 changes in the proposed amended complaint. Id. Plaintiffs current approach imposes an unnecessary burden on Defendants and the Court to review her lengthy proposed amended complaint with the use of an external guide to analyze the proposed pleading. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's current "marked up copy" of the proposed amended complaint (DE 24 -3) is REJECTED and Plaintiff shall submit a "technical redlined" version by 9/18/2026. Furthermore, Defendant's request for 30 days beyond to set forth its position on the proposed amended complaint is REJECTED. See DE 26 . Defendants shall advise the Court by 9/25/2026 whether they object to the proposed amended complaint and, if so provide their basis for their position. The letter motion to amend (DE 24 ) remains under advisement pending the aforementioned submissions. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst on 9/9/2026. (GAW)
Order | Filed: September 03, 2026
| Entered: September 03, 2026
Ocampo v. Central Islip School District et al
Civil Rights: Jobs | New York Eastern
Order on Motion for Pre Motion Conference Order on Motion to Stay
ORDER granting 21 Motion to Stay.
The parties have jointly moved for a stay of discovery on Plaintiff's ADA confidentiality claim pending the anticipated motion to dismiss. "Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), a district court may stay discovery during the pendency of a dispositive motion for 'good cause' shown." Alloway v. Bowlero Corp., No. 2:24-CV-04738 (SJB) (JMW), 2025 WL 1220185, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2025) (citing Hearn v. United States, No. 17-CV-3703, 2018 WL 1796549, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2018)). "[D]istrict courts have considered the following factors in determining whether a stay of discovery is appropriate pending the outcome of a dispositive motion: (1) whether the defendant has made a strong showing that the plaintiffs claim is unmeritorious; (2) the breadth of discovery and the burden of responding to it; and (3) the risk of unfair prejudice to the party opposing the stay." Long Island Hous. Servs., Inc. v. Nassau Cty. Indus. Dev. Agency, No. 14-CV-3307, 2015 WL 7756122, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2015) (quotations omitted). The Court concludes that a stay is appropriate considering (1) the merits of the anticipated motion, (2) the fact that there is no indication that discovery is appropriate or necessary pending resolution of the motion, (3) that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced in any way during the stay. Indeed, Plaintiff has consented to a stay of discovery. Accordingly, the limited motion to stay discovery as to Plaintiff's ADA confidentiality claim pending a decision on the anticipated motion to dismiss is granted.
Moreover, the Court waives the pre-motion conference requirement and adopts the parties' briefing schedule as follows:
(i) Defendants' moving papers shall be filed and served on or before September 18, 2026;
(ii)Plaintiff shall file and serve opposition to the motion on or before October 16, 2026; and
(iii)Defendants' reply papers to be filed and served on or before October 30, 2026.
So Ordered by Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks on 9/3/2026. (JAF)