Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 184

LETTER MOTION for Local Rule 37.2 Conference Reply to Pl. Opp. Dated 10/15/13 (Dkt. No. 181) addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Suzanna Mettham dated October 16, 2013. Document filed by Christopher Broschart(Tax Id. 915354 in his official capacity), Christopher Broschart(Tax Id. 915354 Individually), Timothy Caughey(Tax Id. 885374 Individually), Timothy Caughey(Tax Id. 885374 in his official capacity), Kurt Duncan(Shield No. 2483, Individually), Kurt Duncan(Shield No. 2483 in his official capacity), William Gough(Tax Id. 919124, Individually), William Gough(Tax Id. 919124, in his Official Capacity), Thomas Hanley(Tax Id. 879761, in his Official Capacity), Thomas Hanley(Tax Id. 879761, Individually), Elise Hanlon(in her official capacity as a lieutenant with the New York City Fire Department), Elise Hanlon(individually), Shantel James(Shield No. 3004 in his official capacity), Shantel James(Shield No. 3004 Individually), Theodore Lauterborn(Tax Id. 897840 in his official capacity), Theodore Lauterborn(Tax Id. 897840, Individually), Michael Marino, Michael Marino, Gerald Nelson(Assistant Chief Patrol Borough Brooklyn North, Tax Id. 912370 in his official capacity), Gerald Nelson(Assistant Chief Patrol Borough Brooklyn North, Tax Id. 912370, Individually), Robert W. O'Hare(Tax Id. 916960, Individually), Robert W. O'Hare(Tax Id. 916960, in his Official Capacity), Frederick Sawyer(Shield No. 2576 in his official capacity), Frederick Sawyer(Shield No. 2576, Individually), The City Of New York, Timothy Trainer(Tax Id. 899922, in his Official Capacity), Timothy Trainer(Tax Id. 899922, Individually), Richard Wall, Sondra Wilson(Shield No. 5172, in her Official Capacity), Sondra Wilson(Shield No. 5172, Individually). Return Date set for 10/16/2013 at 12:00 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Mettham, Suzanna)

EXHIBIT B

Yonr
DNPNRTMENT

Tnr Crw oF

L¡.w

MICHAEL A. CARDOZO

NEW

SUZANNA PUBLICKER
sislanl C orpora li on C ounse I
E-mail : spubl [e-mail] c.gov
Phone: (212) 788-l 103
Fax: [phone]

CHURCH STREET
NEW YORK, NEW YORK IOOOT

A

IOO

Corporalion Counsel

s

April26,2013
BY FIRST CLASS MAIL
Nathaniel B. Smith, Esq,
111 Broadway - Suite 1305
New York, New York 10006

Re: Schoolcraft
l0 cv

v. The City o f New York. et al
600s (Rws)

Dear Counsel:

City Defendants write in response to plaintiffs "Notice of Production" dated
April 4, 2013, Any inspection shall take place at the Manhattan Property Clerk's Office (1
Police Plaza, New York, New York 10038), at 9:00a.m. at a date and time to be determined by
counsel.

Plaintiff s First Demand for Production
Plaintiffs Demand
The original recording devises [sic] (an Olympus D.V.R. V/S-331M and an Olympus D.V'R'
DS-50) that any of the defendants obtained, directly or indirectly, from the plaintiff, including all
documents reflecting the chain of custody of such devises while in the possession of the City of
New York, including without limitation, all vouchers thereof.
Cíty Defendønts' Response
Attached please find a Property Clerk Invoice for Invoice No. 1000259089, bearing Bates Nos.
NYC 8408-3409 which was vouchered in the Property and Evidence Tracking System ("PETS")
on November 29,2012. Also annexed hereto is a printout of the chain of custody regarding that
invoice from Nove mber 29, 2012 tllrough March 27 , 2013, bearing Bates Nos. NYC 8410-841 1 '
Note that this evidence had previously been stored in the Internal Affairs Bureau ("IAB") Group
I case fîle, and documentation regarding that storage can be found, inter alia, under Bates Nos.
NYC0004457, NYC0004458, and NYC0004461-4463. Upon information and belief, only
Olympus D.V,R, DS-50 is in the custody and control of the New York City Police Department,
The physical evidence found in Invoice No. 1000259089 may be inspected at the Manhattan
Property Clerk's Office at I Police Plaza on a date to be agreed upon by counsel, City
Defendants demand that plaintiff describe exactly what type of inspection of property is

requested with regard to this item of evidence no less than two weeks before the inspection, so
that proper prior approval may be obtained from the New York City Police Department Property

Clerk's Off,rce.

Plaintiff

s Second

Demand for Production

Plaintíff's Demand
The plâintiff s original memo books, and all copies of them or portions thereof, that employees
or agints of the City of New York obtained from the plaintiff, directly or indirectly, including all
documents reflecting the chain of custody of such memo books or portions thereof while in the
possession of the City of New York, including without limitation, all vouchers thereof.
Cíty Defendants' Response
City Dêfendants object to this request on the grounds that it is duplicative and overbroad'
Notwithstanding, and without waiving any previously interposed objections, City Defendants
note that copies of plaintifls memo book entries were previously produced under Bates Nos.
D000189-D000238. Plaintiff s original Activity Log No. 4663084 is in the custody and control
of Internal Affairs Bureau Group 1, as documented in NYC0004463. Upon information and
belief, an inspection of that Activity Log may be done at the Manhattan Property Clerk's Office
at 1 Police Plaza on a date to be agreed upon by counsel. City Defendants demand that plaintiff
describe exactly what type of inspection of property is requested with regard to this item of
evidence no less than two weeks before the inspection, so that proper prior approval may be
obtained from the New York City Police Department Property Clerk's Office.

Plaintiffs Third

for Production

Plaintíff's Demønd
The originals of all documents, papers, flles, folders, and things that any of the defendants
obtained, directly or indirectly, from the plaintiffls apartment on October 31, 2009 ot on any date
thereafter, including all documents reflecting the chain of custody of such documents, papers or
things while in the possession of the City of New York, including without limitation, all
vouchers thereof.

City Defendønts' Response
City Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is ambiguous, duplicative, and
overbroad. Notwithstanding, and without waiving any previously interposed objections, City
Defendants state that they previously produced Property Clerk Invoice No. K319299, which
included, inter alia, the papers removed from plaintiffs apartment. That invoice, a report
regarding chain of custody of the items contained therein, and other documentation regarding
storage can be found, inter alia, under Bates Nos, D000500-D000501, NYC0003242,
NYC0003249, NYCO003254-3256, NYC0004454, NYC0004459-4460, The physical evidence
found in Invoice No. 1000259089 may be inspected at the Manhattan Property Clerk's Offlrce at
1 Police Plaza on a date to be agreed upon by counsel, City Defendants demand that plaintiff
describe exactly what type of inspection of property is requested with regard to this item of
evidence no less than two weeks before the inspection, so that proper prior approval may be
obtained from the New York City Police Department Property Clerk's Office.
2

Plaintiff

s

Fourth Demand for Production

Pløíntíff's Demønd
The originals of all keys and key ring attachments that any of the defendants obtained, directly or
indirectly, from the plaintiff, including without limitation, all documents reflecting the chain of
custody of such keys and/or attachments while in the possession of the City of New York,
including without limitation, all vouchers thereof.
City Defendønts' Response
City Defendants object to this request on the grounds that it is duplicative, seeks information that
is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and
overbroad. Notwithstanding, and without waiving any previously interposed objections, City
Defendants state that they previously produced Property Clerk Invoice No, RI19340 for the keys
and key rings removed from plaintiffs apartment in Bates No. NYC0003440-3442, City
Defendants further produce an updated version of Property Clerk Invoice No. Rl19340, bearing
Bates No. NYC 8412, indicating that the keys were destroyed on April 73,2070, after plaintiff
failed to pick them up within 120 days, City Defendants further produce Property Guide
Procedure No. 604-07, bearing Bates No. NYC 8413-8418, indicating the Retention Guidelines
of the New York City Police Department, which states that evidence kept for "safekeeping" is
destroyed after 120 days if not claimed during that period.

Plaintiff

s

Outstandine Discoverv

As a reminder, in response to a motion to compel initially filed by City Defendants on March 1,
2013, the Honorable Judge Robert'W. Sweet ruled on April 10, 2013 that plaintiff s responses to
all outstanding discovery requests are due next Vy'ednesday, May 1 ,2013.

Confidentialify Stipulation
Finally, City Defendants write for the third time to request that you please confirm in writing that
you understand that you are bound by the Confidentiality Order signed by plaintiff s former
counsel and so-ordered by the Court on October 5, 2012, and the Attorneys' Eyes Only
Confidentiality Order signed by plaintiffs former counsel and so-ordered by the Court on
October 5, 2012. City Defendants will no longer produce conf,rdential documents to plaintiff
unless and until such a writing is received.
Encl.
yours,

S

S

istant C orpor ation C ouns el
Special Federal Liti gation Division

As

J

s

cc

Gregory John Radomisli (By First-Class Mail)
M¡,Rrn CIBRRw¡,IER & BELL LLP
Attorneys for Jamaica Hospital Medical Center
220 East 42nd Street 13th Floor
New York, NY 10017

Brian Lee (By First-Class Mail)
IVONE, DEVINE & JENSEN, LLP
Attorneys þr Dr, Isak Isakov
2001 Marcus Avenue, Suite Nl00
Lake Success, New York 11042
Bruce M. Brady (By First-Class Mail)
CALLAN, KOSTER, BRADY & BRENNAN, LLP
Attorneys for Lillian Aldana- Bernier
1'Whitehall Street
New York, New York 10004

Walter Aoysius Kretz, Jr, (By First-Class Mail)
SEIFF KRETZ & ABERCROMBIE
Attorney þr Defendant Mauriello
444Madison Avenue, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10022

4