Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 134

Letter addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Suzanna Publicker dated 3/1/2013 re: City defendants request that the Court order plaintiff to provide the documents and information listed above by a date certain. Document filed by The City Of New York et al. Treat as motion returnable 3/20.(cd)

·-

YFlLED\
..

\

_ j;~'I~iLbDR)tii~N

~

_

_,::;;:;::.

_

d"

.'

~. CIIAEf;-;~: CARDOZO
t. pam/lOll ( m:l1sel

HE

C

ITY OF

N

EW

Y

ORK

LAW DEPARTMENT
i 00 CHURClI STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007

Snzanna Publickcr
:1ssislUnI CorpOrallOI1 Counsel
rhone [phone]
lax 1212) 788-9776

spublick;iilawn') c' gov

BY HAND DELIVERY
Honorable Robert \V. Sweet

United States District Judge

Southern District of New York

500 Pearl Street

New York, New York 10007

I~c:

SC.hoolcr!lft v. 'fhe City of1'Jev,{Yor~,SLal.

1O-CV -6005 (R WS)

Your I-Ionor:
1 am the Assistant Corporation Counsel in the oftice of Michad A. Cardozo, Coq)oration
Counsel of the Ci'.y of New York, assigned to represent the City Defendants above-refercm:ed
maner.! City Defendants write regarding certairl of plaintiffs discovery deficiencies.

l3y viay of background, City Defendants served plaintiff with their First Set

or

InfciTogatorics and Document Requests on or about December 5. 20] 1, to which plaintiff
bchnedly responded on April 9, 2012. City Defendants served a second set of Document
Requests on or about August 20,201 to which plaintitr Hgain belatedly responded on Octob-.'r
24, 2012 2 City Defendants outlined the deficiencies to plaintiff s responses to these requtsts in
a kUer dated December 19, 2012 (annexed hereto as Exhibit A), and have further followed up
wit:t plaintilrs counsel by itt1er dated }'ebruary 15,2013 (annexed hereto as Exhibit B). Plaimill
has not n:sponded in any manner. City Delt:ndants therefore resp:;;ctfully request that the Court
compel plaintiff to f(~spond to the enumerated requests below by a date certain as City
Defendants are not able to move lorward with the second day of plaintiff's deposition until th!:se
documents are received.

a teview of the Civil Dorker Sheet, Liculenant William Gough, Sergeant Robert W. CYHarc.
nOI yet been served \Iith
proe<2:is, and an' thert:'fore I)ot parties to this action.
1

A..:cmding

10

Sergc';mt Sondra Wilson, Lieutenant Thomas Hanley, and Captain Timothy Trainor have

Pucsuan! to F.R.C.P. 3:1 and 34, because plaintiff' failed to either respond, or seek an enlargement of time in which
respond wilhin 30 d[lYs of service of City Defendants' discovery requests, any objections to those request.s havt'
be·.:;r: waived.
to

A" Financial Expenses Incurred By Plaintiff
City Defendants demanded proof of all financial expenses incurred by plaintitT as a result
3
of the allegedly unlawful conduct of defendants in this matter. Plaintiff responded by stating
that the demand "is vague, ambiguous. overbroad and unduly burdensome, to the extent thal it
seeks documents that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence, and to the extent that it calls for the production of material not within
plaintiff's possession, custody or control, and that is more readily obtained from another source."
Plaintiff is alleging economic damages in this matter, and as such, plaintiffs contention that the
documenl request is "neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence'" is utterly incomprehensible. Even to the extent that plaintiff alleges that
evidence of plaintiff's financial damages is more readily available from another source, plaintiff
has failed to identify the source(s) from whom City Defendants may request such evidence,
despite requests from City Defendants to so identify the source(s). Plaintiff has similarly refused
to provide evidence of his efforts to mitigate damages by attempting to secure other
employment,4 proof of the $7,185.00 medical bill plaintiff claims he was issued as a result of his
confinement,S and proof of purchase of the recording devices used by plaintifT.(\ Given lhe
rekvance of plaintiff's economic losses and an;; attempts to mitigate those losses to thi s
litigation, City Defendants respectfully request that the Com1 order plaintiff to produce
responsive information by a date certain.
S; Documents Regarding Allegations of lllegalitv Regarding Police Officers Frank

Pallestm and Adbyl Polanco
Plaintiff alleged in his Second Amended Complaint that non-party Police Officers Adhyl
and Frank Pallestro have evidence that the lAB failed to keep their complaints ·~\f
cOFuption and illegality confidential, which plaintiff believe supports his claims in this action.
CilY Defendants therefore demanded any documents in plaintiffs possession that support these
alkgations. 7 Plaintiff responded in part that "[the requestl demands disclo'sure of information
and/or communications that are protected by the attorney-client or work-product privileges, or
\",hich constitute materia! prepared for litigation purposes." III response, City Defendants
reql~t,;sted a privilege log for those documents plaintiff believes are protected by the attorney­
client ancVor work-product priviieges, which plaintiff has thus far failed w provide.
POhlllCO

Plaintiff further objected to produce responsive documents concerning Frank Pallcstro
,
that are in plaintiff's possession, without first obtaining an Attorneys Eyes Only Stipulation
eXf:'~i,:utcd.by the parties and ordered by the Court. City Defendants do not believe any Attorneys'
Eyi~S Only Stiptdation is required 'vvhen none \vas required for plaintiff to produce similar
information pertaining to Adhyl Polanco. Further, plaintiffs claim that evidence regardmg Fmnk
Pal h:stro cannot be produced absent such a stipulation beci3use Pallestro fears retaliation, is
meritles~; in light of the fact that plaintifr has already identified Frank Palh::stro as h;;l\,ing
, S~~ 151 Set of Document Requests - Document Request Numi~er 9.
4

Set' J sl Set of Document Requests - Document Request Number 13.
2

nd

2

nd

Set of Document Requests - Document Request Number 4.

, 2

nd

Set of Document Requests Document Request Number I.

Set of Document Requests - Document Request Number 6.

2

provided information to rAB regarding "allegations of illegality," and more importantly, Frank
Paikstro himself has given numerous interviews to media sources including the New York Daily
News on these matte;s. 8 Accordingly, City Defendants respectfully request that the Court order
plaintiff to provide all evidence in his possession regarding Police Officers Adhyl Polanco and
Frank PallestfO.
C.

M~ssages

and Communications Received Through www.schoolcraftjustice.com

Through the course of discovery, City Defendants learned that plaintiff and his counsel
operated a website with the URL of W\vw.schoolcrliltiustice.com, which asked members of the
NYPD t6 provide information for plaintitTto use in his litigation. City Defendants demanded that
plaintiff produce messages and communications received through \\ww.schoolcraftiustice.col}},
9
including the names, contact information, and IP addresses of all respondents.
Plaintiff claimed that the request implicated that "disclosure of information and/or
communications that are protected by the attorney-client or work-product privileges, or which
constitute material prepared for litigation purposes." So, though plaintiff provided some response
to this request, in doing so, plaintifr redacted the names, contact, information, and IP addres:;es
of all respondents. After City Defendants challenged the assertion of privilege, by pointing out
tha1 the website itself included a disclaimer stating that "information on tbs website is not
intended to create, and receipt or viewing of this information does not constitute, an attorney­
client relationship," the website was taken down.'o It is clear from counsels' website disclaimer
th~Jt there is no attorney-client relationship with regard to any responses to .the
W,\~\-v.schoolcrafti ustice.coITl website and that any claim of privilege would not be asserted in
go,ld failh. Even if there were a relationship, plaintiff has refused to provide a privilege log
reffecting the information plaintiff contends is protected by the attorney-client and/or work­
prcducl privileges, which is required under the Local Rules to be furnished at the lime the
objection is ass(:rted.
Local Rule 26.2(b). Further, as the names, contact information, and IP
addresses of all respondents is information that was not prepared for litigation purposes, it cannot
be considered attorney work-product. Additionally, to the extent fhat plaintiff intends to rely on
statements posted to the website in the furtherance of their litigation, defendants are entitled to
learn the id~ntities of the individuals providing information, and gather their contact information
to:nvcstigate their claims and/or facilitate the service of subpoenas. Accordingly, City
Defendants request that the Court demand plaintitT to produce the subject messages (md
communications rec:eived through www.schoolcraftjustice.com. inc1u ding the un-redacted
names, contact information, and IP addresses of all respondents.

~.&.'

t1!p~1..~\V . nydaih:DeWicf..Q.l)1/newsl l}yjJd -.lV 11 ist Ic_b Io\:ver-pa lestro.:WQns-alk~.9 -colTJJQ.\i Oil ~_41D.Q.:

~';.jnct-union-dtlegate-article-I.194881.

Se~

SN of Document Requests - Document Request Number 2.
"The infonnation contained on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this or a&soGiated
pages, documents, comments, answers, emails, or other cOlnmunii:ations should be taken as legal advict· for any
individual case or situation. This information on this website is not illtended to create, and receipt or viewing of this
inj~.lrmation does not constitute, an attomey-client relationship. Thi~ is arrome), advertising. Past perfonnance does
not guarantee future results." (Sereenshot of w.ww.:ic:boolcxlt1li ustlC~:f~m, Exhibit C )(emphasis 'ldded).

9

10

D.

Communications by Plaintiff with Media Outlets

City Defendants demanded that plaintiff "rp ]roduce any documents, messages, and
communications including but not limited to emails, text messages, and letters reflt;cting any
communications, interviews, conversations, or meetings plaintiff has had with any media outlet
regarding the allegations of the instant lawsuit, including but not limited to blogs, newspapers,
radio stations, independent reporters, and magazines." See 2 nd Set of Document Requests ­
Document Request Number 7. Plaintiff objected to that request by stating that it was "vague,
ambiguous, overbroad and unduly burdensome, to the extent that it seeks documents that are
more readily obtained from another source." City Defendants tind this response wholly
inappropriate given the number of statements plaintiff has made to the media pertaining to the
allegations set forth in the complaint. City Defendants are entitled to discover statements that
plaintiff has made concerning his allegations herein irrespective of whethlT they are also
available from another source. Thus, plaintiffs objections to the document request are baseless
and accordingly, City Defendants respectfully request that the Court compel plaintiff to provide
documents responsive to these wholly reasonable demands.
II. Ylaintiff's Failure to Respond to City Defendants' Requests for Admissions
On December 19, 2012, City Defendants served plaintiff with Requests for Admission
rcgurding the identification of plaintiffs voice on certain recordings. Responses to these requests
are needed because plaintiff could not recall whether he had made certain statements on the
recordings when asked about them at his deposition on October 11, 2012. On that same date,
City De!endants also followed up on requests for production of documents tirst made during
plaintifT's deposition. Plaintiff has not responded to any of these requests, despite having had this
glaring deficiency pointed out in a letter by City De1endants on February 15, 2013. In view of
the foregoing, City Defendants respectfully request that the Court compel plaintiff to respond to
City Defendants' Requests for Admissions and document discovery demands made by City
Derendants first at plaintiff's deposition, and later by letter dated December 19, 2012 by a date
certain.
For the reasons stated above, City Defendants respectfully request that the Court order
pluiutifflo provide the documents and information listed above by a date certain.
City Dd~ndants thanks the Court for its time and consideration of this request.

Suzanna Pubiicker
. Assistant Corporation Counsel
Special Federal Litigation Division
cc:

Richard Gilbert (By Fax 212-633··1977)
Aflorney/or Plaintif]
115 Christopher Street, 2 nd Floor

New York, New York 10014

4

Gregory John Radomisli (By Fax [phone])
MARTIN CLEARWATER & BELL LLP
A!lorneysfor Jamaica HOjpital Medical Center
220 East 42nd Street 13th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Brian Lee (By Fax [phone])
IVO~E, DEVINE & JENSEN, LLP
Attorneysfor Dr, lsak lsakov
2001 Marcus A venue, Suite N 100

Lake Success, New York 11042

Bruce M. Brady (By Fax [phone])

CALLAN, KOSTER, BRADY & BRENNAN, LLP

Attorneysfor Lillian Aldana-Bernier
1 Whitehall Street
New York, New York 10004
Walter Aoysius Kretz, Jr. (By Fax [phone])
SEIFF KRETZ & ABERCROMBIE
Attorneyfor Defendant Mauriello
444 Madison Avenue, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10022

5

EXHIBIT A

THE CITY OF NEW YORK
1'v~[C1I,U:1.

LAW DEPARTMENT

A. CAR()OZO

TP,mnm, ,,,",,I

100 CIIURCH STRb:r::T

NEW YORK, NEW YORK I (l007

StiZANNA PliULICKER
//SS!.HatJi

E·rn.lli

December 19, 2012

BY FIRST-CLASS :\1AIL
Richard A. Gilbert, Esq.
115 Christopher Street, 2 nd Floor
New York, New York 10014
Re; SGn(lQ)1,;' 1·"nY,,·I]I~: ('j tYI)!' ,N9WY9IK,Cl al.

10 CV 6005 (RWS)

Deal' Counsel:
City Defendants are aware that you have recently been retained as counsd for
plaintiff and write: 1) to address plaintiff's deticient discovery responses; and 2) regarding
plaintiff's deposition, including follow-up requests for documents requested during the
deposition.

Plaintiff's Defident Discovery Responses
In compliance with the good faith obligations of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, City Defendants hereby identify the following deficiencies with respect to Plaintiffs
Responses to Defendant's First and Second Sets of Interrogatories and Requests for Production
of Documents.!

lSI_Set of Document Requests - Document Rffiuest Number 9:. And any all documents or
things, including but not limited to audiotapes, videotapes, or other electronic recordings, emaib,
letters, journals or diary entries or notes or like documents or things, in any form or format,
concerning the financial expenses (other than expenses for mental health services) that plaintiff

I Additionally, pursuant to F.R.C.P. 33 and 34, because plaintiff failed to either respond, or seek an
enlargement of time in which to respond within 30 days of service of Cit)' Defe·ndants' discovery
requests, any such objections to those requests were waived.

claims to have incurred to date as a result of the alleged wrongful acts or omissions of the
defendants, including but not limited to attorneys' fees.

Plaintiff's Response: Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and unduly burdensome, to the extent that it seeks documents that are neither relevant
nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and to the extent that it
calls for the production of material not within plaintiff's possession, custody or control, and that
is more readily obtained from another source.
Defendants' Notice of Defi.ciency: Plaintiff appears to be alleging economic damages in this
matter. As such, City Defendants' Document Request No. 9 clearly requests documentary
evidence of such damages. In light of plaintiff's intention to seek compensatory damages,
plaintiff's contention that the document request is "neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" is utterly incomprehensible, Thus, kindly provide
the requested documents or, in the event that plaintiff is not seeking recompense for financial
expenses incurred as a result of the alleged incident, state so. Finally, to the extent that plaintiff
alleges that evidence of pLaint!ff's financial damages is more readily availablc from another
source, identify the source(s) from whom City Defendants may request such evidence.
1st Set of' Document RC(IUests ~ Document Rrquest Number 13: All documents concerning
plaintift:" attempts to secure other employment and/or to otherwise mitigate his alleged damages
since October 31, 2009, including but not limited to: all correspondence or other documents
plaintiff has sent to or received from any employment agencies, search firms or other
outplacement firms, any documents which rencct the dates upon which plaintiff has had contact
with such a2,encies or firms, and any documents concerning any job prospects such agencies or
firms have made known to plaintiff; all employment advertisements plaintiff has placed or to
which plaintiff has responded; and all correspondence, resumes, reference letters OJ' other
documents plaintiff has sent to or received from any prospective employers, all documents
concerning any offers of employment plaintiff has received from any prospective employers' and
all documents concerning plaintifI's rcsponse(s) to any offers of employment he has received.

Plaintiff's Response: Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and unduly burdensome, to the extent that it seeks documents that are neither relevant
nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and to the extent that it
calls for the production of material not within plaintiff's possession, custody or control, and that
is more readily obtained from another source. Notwithstanding, and without waiving or in any
way limiting these objections or the General Objections, plaintitr states that responsive
documents, to the extent that such documents exist and are in the possession of plaintiff, will be
provided under separate cover.
Defendants Notice of Deficiency: To the extent that plaintiff is claiming damages for years of
lost income as a result of the alleged wrongful acts or omissions of the defendants, documents
concerning plaintiffs attempts to secure other employment and/or to ot hcrwisc mitigate his
alleged damages since October 31, 2009, ure clearly relevant and likely to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. As such, please produce the documents responsi ve to this reg llest,
including those you indicated would be provided under separate cover. Further, to the extent that
plaintiff alleges that the requested documents are more readily available from another source,
J

2

City Defendants demand that plaintiff identify the source(s) from whom City Defendants may
request the documents,

2 nd Set of Document Requests - Document Request Number 1: Produce any and all
documents and/or recordings which support, or tend to support, in any way whatsoever, any of
the allegations set forth in paragraph 352 through 353 of plaintiffs Amended Complaint alleging
that the lAB failed to keep complaints of corruptions and illegality c,onfidential in the 42 nd
Precinct regarding allegations of illegality involving Police Oflicers Frank Pallestro and Adhyl
Polanco.
Plaintiff'ts Response: Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague. ambiguous,
overbroad and unduly burdensome, to the extent that it seeks documents that are neither relevant
nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and to the extent that it
calls for the production of material not within plaintiff s possession, custody or control, and that
is more readily obtained from another source and to the extent that it demands disclosure of
in11Jrmation and/or communications that are protected by the attorney~client or work-product
privileges, or which constitute material prepared for litigation purposes. Notwithstanding, and
without waiving or ill any way limiting these objections or the General Objections, plaintiff
states that responsive documents concerning Adhy] Polanco have previously been provided in
plainti!T s responses to dcCendants first demand for discovery, dated April 9, 2012. Additionally,
responsive documents concerning Frank Pallestro are in plaintiff s possession, but will oniy be
disclosed pursuant to an Attorneys Eyes Only StipUlation executed by the parties and ordered by
the Court.
Defendants' Notice of Deficiency: Please provide a privilege log for those documents plaintiff
believes are protected by the attorney-client and/or work-product privileges. Additionally, in
response to plaintiff's contention that "documents concerning Adhyl Polanco have previously
been provided in plalntiff s responses to defendants first demand for discovery, dated April 9,
2012," please specifically identify the previously produced documents by reference to particular
Baies Numbers. With regard to Frank Pallcstro, it is unclear why plaintiff posits that an
Attorneys' Eyes Only StipUlation is required when, ostensibly, none was required to produce
similar information pertaining to Adhyl Polanco. Further, plaintiff's claim that evidence
regarding Frank Pallestro cannot be produced absent such a stipulation, because he fears
retaliation, is meritless in light of the fact that plaintiff has already identified Frank Pallcstro as
having provided information to lAB regarding "allegations of illegality," and more importantly,
Frank Pallestro himself has given numerous interviews to media sources including the New York
Dai Iy News ( IJl1J)ji\"'\v\yny~IDiJYJ1~'\\'::;:\'()!1J/n(; \Y~/lnJ)\I- \vll.lSlll'h IO\\~'J:F,[I~~SIE\f"Jl'pl)ns- il.ll",'!:',-'(!,
((lJTtIPliop-4411d~JlI:'~L'illl'l-\lnl\mcll'k:g;ltL'-"rli\~I\~~J ]l):lXH I). Therefore, kindly provide any and
all documents in your possession responsive to this demand and, further, to the extent there ar..:
documents responsive to tbi8 document request outside of plaintiffs custody and/or control,
identify the custodian of such documents.
2 mJ Set of Document Rcgucsts - Document Reguest Number 2: Produce any and all messages
and communications received through www.sehoolcraftjustice.com. including the names, contact
information, and IP addresses of all respondents.

3

Plaintiff's Response: Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
overbroad, and unduly burdensome, and to the extent that it demands disclosure of information
and/or communications that are protected by the attorney-client or work-product privileges, or
which constitute material prepared Cor litigation purposes. Notwithstanding, and without waiving
or in any way limiting these objections or the General Objections plaintiff is providing
responsive documents redacted accordingly.
(~l Deficiency: According to the wwW,~ch()olcraftiustice.c.QJ!l website, "The
information contained on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this
or associated pages, documents, comments, answers, emails, or other communications should be
taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. 'This information on this website is not
intended to create, and receipt or viewing of this information docs not constitute, an attorney­
client relationship, This is attorney advertising. Past performance does not guarantee future
results." It is clear from counscls' own statements that there is no attorney-dient relationship
with regard to any responses to the www.schoolcratljustice.£9m website, Further, as the names,
contact information, and IP addresses of all respondents is information that was not prepared for
litigation purposes, it cannot be considered attorney work-product. In any event, please provide a
privilege log reflecting the information plainti ff' contends is protected by the attorney-client
and10r work-product privileges. Additionally, to the extent that plaintiff intends to rely 011
statements posted to the website, defendants are entitled to learn the identities of the individuals
providing information, and gather their contact inl~)fTnation to investigate their claims andlor
facilitate the service of subpoenas. Accordingly, please produce the subject messages and
communications received through www.school~nl.f.tjustice.coJIl, including the un-redacted
names, con/act information, and IP addresses ofall respondents.

Defendants' Notice

2 nl.l Set of Do('ument Requests ~ DOl'umen' R('gl~est Nurnbl~r 3: Produce any and all evidence
of "NYPD misconduct and corruption H that plaintiff collected and documented on or before
October 31, 2009. If that evidence was destroyed, or is no longer in plaintiff's possession, please
identify each item that was destroyed, the approximate dates of destruction, and the manner of its
destruction. If that evidence is no longer in plaintiff's possession, please identify each item that
is no longer in plaintiff's possession, and the current possessor, holder or recipient of that item.

Plaintiff'S Re!Jponse: Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and unduly burdensome, to the extent that it seeks documents that are neither relevant
nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and to the extent that it
calls for the production of material not within plaintiff s possession, custody or control, and that
is more readily obtained from another source or has already been turned over in discovery.
Notwithstanding, and without waiving or in any way limiting these objections 01' the General
Objections, plainti rf identi fies notes and documents plainti rf had prepared ielenti fying corruption
in the NYPD, which were seized by N YPD defendants during his seizure on October 31,2009.

Defendants' Notice of Deficiency: To the extent that plaintifI claims that evidence of "NYPD
misconduc1 and COlTUption" was seized by NYPD defendants during the incident at plaintiWs
apartment on October 31, 2009, please identify with particularity what evidence plaintiff claims
was taken from his apartment by the NYPD. Additionally, to the extent that plaintiff alleges that
evidence of "NYPD misconduct and corruption" is more readily available from another source,

4

please identify what evidence is available from another source, and the source from which that
evidence may be obtained.
2nd Set of i)Ol'Ulncnt Rt'<juests - Docum~nt Request Number 4: Produce any bills, receipts,
cancelled checks or other proof of payment, insurance claims, and insurance benefits received, or
like documents or things, in any form or format, concerning (a) Olympus D.V.R. (WS-331 M),
valued at $100.00; (b) Key Ring Light. valued at $15.00; and (c) Olympus D.V.R. (D8-50),
valued at $250.00 as referred in Plaintiffs Notice of Claim. If plaintiff is still in possession of
any or all of these items, defendants demand the opportunity to inspect these items.

Plaintiil's Response: Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and unduly burdensome, to the extent that it seeks documents that are neither relevant
nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and to the extent that it
calls fot' the production of material not within plaintiff's possession, custody or control, and that
is more readily obtained from another source. Notwithstanding, and without waiving or in any
way limiting these objections or the General Objections. plaintiff has annexed the receipts in his
possession.
Defendants' Notice of Deficiency: In response to this request, plaintiff produced receipts !~)r an
Olympus D8-50 1 GB Digital Voice Recorder, valued at $159.99 ($162.94 after shipping and
.tax) and a receipt for an Olympus WS·-331M Digital Voice Recorder, valued at $113.59 ($123.10
aftcr shipping and tax). Please confirm that the DS-50 described in the Notice of Claim valued at
$250 is the same 08-50 referenced in the receipt annexed to plaintiff's discovery responses; and
that the Olympus WS-331 M described in the Notice of Claim as valued at $100.00 is the same
WS-331 M referenced in the receipt annexed to plaintiffs discovery responses. Further, in
response plaintiffs averment that this request "ealls for the production of material not within
plaintiffs possession, custody or control, and that is more readily obtained from another source,"
plaintiff's identify theresponsive evidence available from another source, as well as the source.
FU11her, if plaintiff is still in possession of any or all of these items, defendants demand the
opportunity to inspect these items at a date and time lO be agreed upon by counsel.

l"ti Set of I)ocument Requests - Document Request Number 5:

Produce any and all
documents or things, including but not limited to bills, receipts. cancelled checks or other proof
of payment, insurance claims, and insurance benefits received, or like documents or things, in
any form or format, that support plaintiff's claim that he received. a bill in the amount of
$7185.00 for his confinement at Jamaica Hospital Medical Center beginning on or about October
3 L 2009.

Plaintiff'S Response: Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and unduly burdensome, to the extent that it seeks documents that are neither relevant
nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and to the extent that it
calls for the production of material not within plaintiff'S possession, custody or control, and that
is more readily obtained from another source. Notwithstanding, and without waiving or in any
way limiting these objections or the General Objections, plaintiff slates that he is not in
possession of materials responsive to this request.

5

Defendants' Notice of Deficiency: Please identify whether plaintiff was ever in possession of
materials responsive to this request, and further, identify any documents responsive 10 the
request (even if said documents are not in plaintiff's possession) and the custodian of the
documents.

2nd Set of Document Requests - Document Request Number 6:

Produce any and all
documents or things, including but not limited to bills, receipts, cancelled checks or other proof
of payment, insurance claims, and insurance benefits received, or like documents or things, in
any form or format, that support plaintiff s claim that Jamaica Hospital Medical Center collected
money as a result of the alleged bill that plaintiff received in the amount of $7,185.00 for his
confinement at Jamaica Hospital Center beginning on or about October 31,2009.

Plaintiff's Response: Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous,
overbroad and unduly burdensome, to the extent that it seeks documents that are neither relevant
nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and to the extent that it
calls for the production of material not within piaintitTs possession, custody or control, and that
is more readily obtained from another source. Notwithstanding, and without waiving or in any
way limiting these objections or the General Objections, plaintiff states that he is not in
possession of materials responsive to this request.
Defendants' Notice of Deficiency: Please identify whether plaintiff was ever in possession of
materials responsive to this request, and further, identify any documents responsive to the
request (even if said documents are not in plaintiff's possession) and the custodian of the
documents.

2 nd Set of Document Requests - Document Request Number 7: . Produce any documents,
messages, and communications including but not limited to emails, text messages, and letters
reflecting any communications, interviews, conversations, or meetings plaintiff has had with any
media outlet regarding the allegations of the instant lawsuit, including but not limited to blogs,
newspapers, radio stations, independent reporters, and magazines.

Plaintiff's Response: Plaintiff objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, an1biguous,
overbroad and unduly burdensome, to the extent that it seeks documents that are more readily
obtained from another source.

lJefendants ' Notice of Deficiency: Upon information and belief, plailltifT has made numerous
statements to the media pertaining to the allegations set forth in the complaint. Defendants are
entitled to discover the statements that plaintiff has made concerning his allegations herein.
Thus, plaintiffs objections to the document request are baseless. Accordingly, please provide
documents responsive to the demand. Additionally, to the extent that plaintiff claims that
dm:uments responsive to this request are "more readily obtained from another source", identify
the source(s).
Please provide the information requested herein no later than January 11, 2013. Should
plaintiff fail to timely respond, City Defendants will have no choice but to seek judicial
intervention.

6

Plaintifrs Deposition
During the course of plaintiffs deposition, plaintiff indicated on several occasions that he
had no independent recollection of many of the events upon which he was questioned, and
instead directed the undersigned to his "recordings." For example, when asked about the number
of times he was told to conduct a stop, question, and frisk without reasonable suspicion, plaintirf
stated "I believe there are mUltiple recordings of supervisors telling officers to articulate a charge
IUll'r." However, when asked to identify the specilic recordings supporting his claims, plaintiff
was unable to identify or narrow down the recording on which such conversations could be
found. See, _~, Schoolcraft Deposition Transcript at 80: 13 -83 :6. Given the fact that plaintiff has
provided defendants with approximately 150 recordings spanning over twenty hours, a continued
deposition to review said rt:cordings would not be an efficient use or lht: partit:s' time.
Accordingly, City Defendants request that plaintiff agree to review the enclosed transcript amI,
in each instance where plaintiff did not specifically identify those recordirlgs supporting his
ciaim, identify with particularity the recordings referenced by plaintiff as responsive to City
Dc /cndants' questions.
Additionally, City Defendants request production of the rollowing docurnents first
relluested during plaintiff's deposition on October I I, 2012:
1. AHida\ its provided by plaint ilT in other lawsuits- 14: 8-15: 12;
2. All recordings relating to plaintifrs claims not previously produced 31 :4-9;
3. A copy of the hard drive of the computer used by plaintiff on or about October 31,
2009 onto which plaintiff transferred relevant recordings 35:24-36:7;
4. Inspection of the clothing that plaintiff was \\'earing on October 31. 2009 l63: 13;
5. Letter sent by plaintiff to Senator Fadey- 27'..): ! 9-280: I.

City Defendants' New Discovery Demands
Enclosed please find City Defendants' First Set

or Requests for Admissions.

Encl.

5in89='
Suzan~a)\lhlicker
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Special federal Litigation Division

7

cc

Gregory John Radomisli (By First-Class Mail)
MARTIN CLEAR WATER & BELL LLP
Attorneys for Jamaica Ho::,pital Medical Center
220 East 42nd Street 13th Floor

New York, NY 10017

Brian Lee (By First-Class Mail)

IVONE, DEVINE & JENSEN, LLP

Attorneys for Dr. Isak /sakov

2001 Marcus Avenue, Suite NI00

Lake Success, New York 11042

Bruce M. Brady (By First-Class Mail)

CALLAN, KOSTER, BRADY & BRENNAN, LLP

Attorneys/or Lillian Aldana-Demler

1 Whitehall Street
Nc\\' York, New York 10004
Walter Aoysius Kretz, Jr. (By First-Class Mail)
SElFF KRETZ & ABERCROMBIE
Attorneyfor Defendant Mauriello
444 Madison Avenue, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10022

8

EXHIBIT B

THE CITY OF NEW YORK

LAW DEPARTMENT

llCHAEL i\, CAIWOZO

SrZ,\N'i:\ 1'('1111(1(1 H

100 CI HJRCII SIREEr
NFW YORK, NEW YORK 10007

Corpora/IOn ('ol;l/sel

j

11ssfsfanf

February 19, 2013

BY HAND DELIVERY
Richard A. Gilbert, Esq.
115 Christopher Street, 2nd Floor
New York. New York 10014
Rc: Scho(ji(;m1ty, The ('it) ill' New
10 CY 600S (RWS)

York,~l[lL

Dear Counsel:
In accordance with defendants' continuing discovery obligations, enclosed please
find color copies of the documents previously produced by City Defendants under Batcs Nos,
NYC00003728 through NYC00003286 and NYC00003257 through NYC00003276. The new
color copies bear Bates Nos. NYC00007532 through NYC00007560, City Defendants also
produce additional documents and recordings from the lAB Case file as described below.
Documents bearing Bates Nos. NYC00007561, NYC00007567, and NYC00007676,
NYC00007678-NYC00007681,
NYC00007685,
NYC00007689,
NYC00007691,
NYC00007695,
NYC00007697,
NYC00007699-NYC00007734,
NYC00007736­
NYC00007740,
NYC00007742-NYC00007744,
NYC00007746-NYC00007749,
NYC00007752-NYC00007754,
NYC00007760,
NYC00007763,
NYC00007766,
NYCOOOO7R88­
NYC00007768-NYC00007771,
NYC00007773-NYC00007774,
NYCOOOO7R89,
NYC00007892-NYC00007942,
NYC00007990-NVC00008006,
NYC00008015-NYC00008048. NYC00008078-NYC000081 00 are being produced subject to
the Attorneys' Eyes Only Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order, endorsed by the
Court on October 5, 2012. Documents bearing Bates Nos. NYC00007671, NYC00007673­
NYC00007675,
1\:YC00007682-NYC00007683,
NYC00007686,
NYC00007690,
NYC00007692,
N YC00007741,
NYC00007745,
NYC00007750-NYC00007751.
NYC00007755-NYC00007759, NYC00007761,
arc being produced subject to thc
Conlidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order, endorsed by the Court on October 5. 2012.

Document Description
1. lAB CD titled Sgt. Krohley/PO Rudy
2. lAB CD titled Call-Out #09-097 (re: 09-61921)
3. 11\13 CD titled 1,1. Hudnell
Wed 01113/]0 Att to
Cont'.lcts, etc.
4. JAB CD titled Sgt. 0' I[are IA No. 10-03173
5. lAB CD titled P.O. Schoolcraft 11.04,09
6. lAB CD titled Lt. Dronzek 01.06.10
7. lAB CD titled 159A
8. lAB CD titled Lt. Ilanion
9. lAB CD titled Capt. Perez 01.06.10
10. [AB CD of Capt. PcrC7
11. lAB CD titled 310a
PO Joseph; 31 I a
PO
Bonnomctte; 312a PO Khcla: 314a . . . PO l\/1artincz;
31 Sa PO Brown; 317a Sgt. Alston; 31821 PO
Taveras; 31921 PO Clark
12. lAB CD titled 322a
J 3. lAB CD titled 32521
14. lAB CD titled 326a
15. CD Containing Documents from lAB Investigation
M09-1973

Bates Stam[! No.
NYC00007561
NYC00007562
NYC00007563

Confidentiality
ARO

Not Confidential

Not Confidential

NYC00007564

Not Confidential

Not Confidential

Not Confidential

NYC00007565
NYC00007566
NYC00007567
NYC00007568
NYC00007569
NYC00007570

NYC00007571

NYC00007572

NYC00007573

NYC00007574

NYC0007671­
NYC00008230 1

AEO

Not Confldentiul
Not Confidential
Not Confidential
AEO

ARO

AEO

AEO

AEO

Confidential

Not Confidential

In accordance with defendants' continuing obligation under F.R.C.P. 26(c),
cnclosed please also find additional documents responsive to plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for
Production of Documents, bearing Bates Nos. NYC00007575 through NYC NYC00007670,
which are being produced subject to the Attorneys' Eyes Only Confidentiality Stipulation and
Protective Order, endorsed by the Court on October 5, 2012. As to the requests for disciplinary
information, please note that incidcnts renccting chargcs of misconduct that do not invol vc
ulkgations of a similar nature to the allegations against the individual officers in the complaint or
false statements have been redacted. As there were no closed. relevant matters on the Central
Personncllndices for defendants Lt. eJough. Sgt. Wilson, Sgt. W"i!, I.t. Hanley, and Lt. O'Hare.
no CPI documents have been produced for those defendants. Similarly, there were no closed,
relevant matters on the lAB Resumes of defendants Captain Trainor, Sgt. Wall, and Sgt. Wilson,
therefbre, no [AB Resume documents have been produced for those dclendants. Additionally,
there were no .closed, relevant matters on the CCRB Histories of defendants Lt. 0' Hare, Captain
Trainor, Sgt. Wilson, and Sgt. Wall, therefore, no CCRB documents have been produced for
those defendants. This office is continuing to inquire into incidents where an investigation may
be ongoing. Once those matters are closed, to the extent that any exists, relevant disciplinary
information will be provided. With respect to omcer personnel l~)lden;, please note that City
I Please see enclosed for a log indicating documents that have been withheld on the basis of
privilege, redundancy, and/or relevance.

2

Defendants have not produced performance evaluations that

prec~dc

the incident by more than

live years or post-date the incident.

Document Descrintion
J 6, Central Personnel Index for Captain Timothy Trainor
17, CCRB History for Lt. William Gough
18. ceRR History for Lt, 'Thomas Hanley
19, 11\13 Resume for Lt. William Gough
20. JAB Resume for Lt. Thomas llanley
21. lAB Resume for Lt. O'Hare

22. Personnel Foldcr for Lt. William Gough
23. Personnel Folder for Sgl. Sondra Wilson
24, Personnel Folder for Captain Timothy Trainor

25. Personnel Folder for Lt. Robert 0'1 lare

26, Personnel Folder far Lt. Thomas I lanley

Bates Stamn No.
N YC()()007 575­
NYC00007576
l\,YC00007577
NYC00007578
NYCOO()07579­
NYC00007580
NYC00007581·
NYC00007S82
NYC00007583­
NYC00007585
NYC00007586­
NYC00007599
NYC00007600­
NYC00007610
NYC00007611­
'NYC00007643
NYC00007644­
NYC00007658
NYC00007659­
NYC00007670

Contidentialitv
AhO
!\EO
I\EO
!\EO

AEO
AEO

AEO
AEO

AEO
1\120

As you are i;1\varc, plaintiff was served with City Defendants' First Set of
Requests foJ' Admissions on December] 9, 2012. Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 33 and 34, plaintiff was
obligated to respond to said discovery demands within thirty (30) days or service. llowever, to
date, City Defendants have not received plaintiff's responses, Additionally, on December 19,
2012, plainti 1T was served with a letter from City Defendants indicating certain enumera1.cd
deficiencies with plaintiffs Responses to City Defendants' First and Second Sets of
Int,=rrogatories and Requests for Production or Documents. Plaintiff has also failed to respond to
those discovery requests. Pk:asc serve plaintiffs responses to both City Defendants' Requests for
Admissions and City Defendants' December 19, 2012 deficiency letter by March 8, 2013,
otherwise, City Defendants will seek court intervention, Additionally, pursuant to F,R,C.P, 33
and 34, because plaintiff failed to either timely respond, or seek an enlargement of time in which
to respond, to City Defendants' discovery demands, any objections therdo have now been
wZlived.
City Defendants note that there is no indication from the Courfs Civil Docket
Sheet whether Lieutenant William Gough, Sergeant Robert W. O'Hare, Sergeant Sondra Wllson,
Liclltenant Thomas Hanley, and Captain 'Timothy Trainor hav . .· been served, On numerous
occasions, City Defendants have requested hoth from plaintiff's former counsel and from present

3

counsel affidavits or service indicating that these individuals were served? Accordingly, if you
have served these individuals, please produce the affidavits of service by February 28, 2013,
otherwise City Defendants will seck COUl1 intervention,
Finally, City Defendants request to know whether you will be accepting service of
subpoenas 011 Larry Schoolcraft and Frank Serpico. Plaintiffs prior counsel, Jon NOrlnsbcrg, had
consented to accept service of any subpoena issued to Larry Schoolcraft and to produce him 1'01' a
deposition. City Defendants have previously asked present counsel about this request (see Letter
dated January 9, 2(13), but have not heard back. Additionally, a Daily News article dated
February 4, 2013 (annexed hereto) indicated that Frank Serpico is now part of plain(iff~s "Iega!
teaIn." Accordingly, please indicate whether you will accept service 0[' a subpoena issued to
Frank Serpico and whether you will produce him for deposition at a later date.

Sincerely yours,

<",.~,;
<

("

S,(JL(,U 1<

,

Publicker

AssiS{((1/I ( 'orp0l'uiillfl ( '01111.1('/

Special Federal Litigation Division
cc:

(Jrcgory .Ioh11 Radomisli (By Hand

Delivery)

MARTIN CLl~i\RWATER & BELL LLP

It ((orneysfor JamClica Hospital lvledical
('enter
220 East 42nd Stwet 13th r'loor
New York, NY 10017

Bruce M. Brady (By Hand Delivery)
CALLAN, KOSTER, BRADY &
BRENNAN, LLP
Aftorneys/or Ullian Aldana-Bernier
I Whitehall Street
New York, Kew York 10004

Brian Lee (By First-Class Mail)
IVONE, DEVINE & JENSEN, LLP
Atlorneys/or Dr. Isak Isakov
200 I Marcus Avenue, Suite N 100
Lake Success, New York 11042

Walter Aoysius Kretz, Jr. (By Hand
Delivery)
SEIFF KRETZ & ABERCROMBIE
Attorneyfor Defendant Mauriello
444 Madison Avenue, 30th Floor
N<.:w York, NY 10022

2 ~ee Emails to Jon Norinsbcrg dated Octobl.:f 17,2012, November 7,2012, and November 13,
20]2; Email to Richard Gilbert dated December 21, 2012; and conversation in person with
Richard Gilbert at the Court conference on January 3D, 2013.

4

EXHIBIT C

.~.

L. NORINSBERG. Esq.

225 Broadway, SUite 2700

New York, New York 10007

;el: 212.791.5396
Fax: [phone]

COHEN &
FITCH LLP
Attorne)', ut Law

The Woolworth Building
233 Broadway, Suite 1800
New York,. New York U)279

Tr.i: 212.374.9115

www.norinsberglaw.com

Fax: 212.406,2313

Email: [e-mail]

www.cohenfitch.com
Email: [e-mail]