Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al
Filing
225
DECLARATION of Suzanna Publicker Mettham in Support re: 223 MOTION to Compel Graham Rayman to Produce Documents.. 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), 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). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O)(Mettham, Suzanna)
EXHIBIT J
Nsw Yonr, Npw Yonr rooo6
Nrrs,¡r¡zr
B. Sx¡rs
TÐl (ars) 2z7-?06?.
F^r: {el2} 3¿6-4€66
June 4,2013
Honorable Robert W. Sweet
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Stleet
New York, New York 1007
Schoolcrafi v. The City oJ'New York, et al.,
t 0-cv-600s (RWS)
Dear Judge Sweet;
'
I anì writing on behalf of Plai¡rtiff Adrian Sohoolcrafl to respond to the May
28,2013 letter from the City f)efendants about variou¡s alleged discovery
cleticiencies by the PlaintifT,
L
Statemenrs þ the Medía. I have several times reviewed the file and
discussed this request with the Plaintiffì and other than the news stories that have
already been produced in this case and an audio tape of an interview with NIPR,
which I understand was previously produced, the Plaintifïdoes not have any
slatements about the case that he made to the rnedia.
2. Evídence a.f the City DefendanÍs' Retalialion Againsf Olher Police
Oflicers. As I have already inforrned the City Def'endants, the Plaintiff does not
have any evidence in his possession relating to the NYPD's retaliation against
Police Officers Adhyl Polanco or Frank Pallestro. I note, however, that the
Plaintiff and hís counsel understand that there is evidence of those fäcts in the
public record of the action that was recently tried before Judge Shira Schiendlin in
Flovd v, The Ciry of New York,08-cv-1034 (SAS). Counsel for the City
3,
Interrogalories to Plaíntifr, Contrary to their suggestions, the City
Defendants did not make a request for a ruling in their last motion for an order
directing the Plaintiff to answer questions in the form of interrogatories about what
he could not recall at his deposition. On that basis, the City Defendants inconectly
suggest that this issue was resolved by the Court. It was not and therefore the
request should be denied on that basis. The request should also be denied because
Local Rule 33 provides strict limitations on the types of interrogatories that can be
propounded, and this type of interrogâtory violates that express limitation. Finally,
I am aware of no rule or procedure that requires a party who does not recall a
specific fact or event to "supplement" an answer given at a deposition with further
research, and such a potentially endless process should not be invented for
purposes of this case.
For these reasons, the City Defendants' motion, by letter dated May 28,
2013, for further discovery should be denied.
Respectfully submítted,
Nathaniel B. Smith
By Hand
cc: All Counsel (with encl.)
Via Email