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 K
1
E1FBSCHC
1
Conference
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------x
3
ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT,
4
Plaintiff,
5
6
v.
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et als,
7
8
10 CV 6005 (RWS)
Defendants.
------------------------------x
New York, N.Y.
January 15, 2014
12:06 p.m.
9
10
Before:
11
HON. ROBERT W. SWEET,
12
District Judge
13
APPEARANCES
14
15
16
NATHANIAL B. SMITH
Attorney for Plaintiff
JOHN LENOIR
Attorney for Plaintiff
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MICHAEL A. CARDOZO, Corporation Counsel
for the City of New York
Attorneys for Defendant
SUZANNA PUBLICKER METTHAM
SCOPPETTA SEIFF KRETZ & ABERCROMBIE
Attorneys for Defendant Mauriello
WALTER A. KRETZ, JR.
MARTIN CLEARWATER & BELL LLP
Attorneys for Defendant Jamaica Hospital
GREGORY JOHN RADOMISLI
IVONE, DEVINE and JENSEN, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant Isakov
BRIAN E. LEE
2
E1FBSCHC
Conference
1
(In open court)
2
THE COURT:
3
MS. METTHAM:
Schoolcraft.
Good afternoon, your Honor.
We're here
4
on a motion by City defendants from December 18th.
5
like some of the matters are more or less resolved.
6
think we could start with the easiest and go to the more
7
difficult.
8
THE COURT:
9
MS. METTHAM:
It sounds
So I
Okay.
The easiest is plaintiff provided some
10
memoranda to nonparty NYPD witnesses, or so he claims.
11
searched NYPD for these memoranda; have not been able to find
12
them.
13
requested them of plaintiff, but haven't received them.
14
plaintiff's opposition, he stated he has no objection to
15
providing them.
16
17
We
In our original document requests three years ago, we
In
So we simply ask that he be ordered to provide those
documents by next week.
18
THE COURT:
Any problem?
19
MR. SMITH:
I just don't want anyone to suggest --
20
this is Nathanial Smith for Schoolcraft.
21
identify myself for the record.
22
I just want to
I don't know that the plaintiff has these documents.
23
These are two memos that --
24
THE COURT:
Well, if he has them, he'll produce them.
25
MR. SMITH:
Yes.
3
E1FBSCHC
Conference
1
THE COURT:
Okay.
2
MS. METTHAM:
Your Honor, the second one is a letter
3
that plaintiff wrote firing previous counsel on this case.
4
the City defendants have --
5
THE COURT:
6
me.
I think I understand that.
As
Well, you told
Has that been resolved?
7
MS. METTHAM:
8
THE COURT:
9
It has not.
there was a waiver?
And this is the issue as to whether or not
10
MS. METTHAM:
11
THE COURT:
Yes, your Honor.
Well, at this stage, we don't know that
12
there's a waiver.
Right?
13
that either the reporter was lying -- you should pardon the
14
expression -- or something, but we don't know.
15
MS. METTHAM:
16
THE COURT:
We know that-- you take the position
Correct.
How are we going to resolve that?
I mean,
17
maybe the only thing you can do is subpoena the reporter and
18
then we can have a litigation over sources.
19
old time.
20
MS. METTHAM:
21
done just that.
22
We'll have a grand
I hate to inform your Honor that we have
So we will be having a grand old time, just
not today.
23
THE COURT:
24
MS. METTHAM:
25
Okay.
My proposal, though, in my reply was
that if plaintiff could provide an affidavit either stating
4
E1FBSCHC
1
Conference
that he never provided these documents --
2
THE COURT:
3
MS. METTHAM:
4
THE COURT:
5
is he?
Oh, sure, that would have solved it.
Yes.
But obviously he's not going to do that or
Maybe?
6
MR. SMITH:
Well, I mean, he's been asked --
7
THE COURT:
That would obviate the problem.
I guess
8
the answer is unless you depose him or something, I don't know
9
how you can compel him to give you an affidavit.
10
MR. SMITH:
Well, part of the problem is that they've
11
taken his deposition for 21 consecutive hours.
12
this issue seven hours into the 21 hours.
13
decided, well, we'd really like to get our hands on this juicy
14
piece of totally irrelevant information about why the plaintiff
15
fired his prior lawyer.
16
17
They knew about
And now they've
You know, I mean, yeah, could he provide an affidavit?
Should he?
No.
18
THE COURT:
Okay.
19
MS. METTHAM:
All right.
Your Honor, I would actually cite to the
20
case cited by Mr. Smith in his opposition, the Wellnx Life
21
Sciences case which, in a similar matter, had an evidentiary
22
hearing before the Court to resolve it.
23
going through the process of another deposition or another
24
evidentiary hearing, that the Court order plaintiff to either
25
produce the document or provide an affidavit that he did not
I simply ask that in
5
E1FBSCHC
1
Conference
produce those documents to Graham Raymond (ph) or his father.
2
THE COURT:
What's my authority to do that?
3
will order him to be deposed again if you want.
4
I mean, I
that.
5
MS. METTHAM:
We can do
I mean, I would ask, then, that your
6
Honor order his deposition.
7
avoid the deposition by providing an affidavit, we would be
8
willing to do so.
9
THE COURT:
Sure.
And if plaintiff would like to
Okay.
Fine.
10
MS. METTHAM:
11
The third matter is with regard to messages that
12
Thank you, your Honor.
plaintiff's counsel received through a website set up--
13
THE COURT:
Yes.
14
MS. METTHAM:
So what happened is a few years ago
15
plaintiff's prior counsel produced hundreds of pages of these
16
documents without any confidentiality designation whatsoever,
17
but with the names and contact information redacted.
18
been for the last two years in a protracted attempt to avoid
19
coming to the Court about this matter.
20
We have
I have proposed to both prior and current counsel that
21
either plaintiff provide the names and contact information of
22
these individuals so that we can probe the veracity and
23
credibility of these statements or that plaintiff be precluded
24
from relying on these documents and statements in discovery and
25
at trial.
6
E1FBSCHC
Conference
1
THE COURT:
What do you think?
How do we solve this?
2
MR. SMITH:
My solution, your Honor, was that the
3
names be provided to just the lawyers and the reason for
4
that --
5
THE COURT:
No, I understand.
That's fine, but that
6
doesn't quite solve the problem.
It seems to me one of two
7
things:
8
attorneys' eyes only, all of the information, or if you want to
9
give them the name and keep the redaction as to the
You can provide all of the information eyes only,
10
identification, I would permit that.
But you will not be-- if
11
you're going to use any of that information in any way -- and
12
the trouble with that is how do we determine whether you do
13
that or not?
14
going to be called, they've got to be deposed, et cetera, et
15
cetera.
I mean, obviously if any of these people are
I mean, if the City wants to.
16
So what would you like?
17
MR. SMITH:
18
Well, my preference would be to provide
all of the information on an attorneys' eyes only basis and --
19
THE COURT:
That's fine.
20
MR. SMITH:
And --
21
THE COURT:
That's fine, but you also have to at some
22
23
time indicate if you're going to call any of these people.
MR. SMITH:
Yes.
And that's where I think this rather
24
substantial concern of safety has got to be addressed in a
25
thoughtful and careful way.
And right now I can think of one
7
E1FBSCHC
Conference
1
person who sent an e-mail who may actually have to testify as a
2
witness in this case, because he actually also was tape
3
recording one of the other --
4
THE COURT:
Okay.
I saw that.
5
MR. SMITH:
Yes.
So, I mean --
6
THE COURT:
Clearly any evidence that you want to
7
adduce based on those eyes only production, you have to now--
8
when are you going to be able to-- where are we?
9
end in sight?
10
Is there an
Probably not, but is there an end in sight for
discovery?
11
MR. SMITH:
Yes.
Your Honor has given us until the
12
middle of March approximately.
13
plaintiff for three days.
14
taken.
15
16
THE COURT:
We've done, as I indicated, the
The father of the plaintiff has been
Well, look, at some time-- did you say the
end of March?
17
MR. SMITH:
The middle of March.
18
THE COURT:
So obviously you've got to tell the City
19
quite soon if you're going to call any of these, use any of
20
these people.
21
MR. SMITH:
Yes, I recognize that.
22
THE COURT:
What would you say?
23
MR. SMITH:
Well, with respect to this one, we're
Within a week?
24
moving pretty-- we're working hard now on discovery.
25
are, Judge.
I've taken, like, seven depositions.
We really
8
E1FBSCHC
1
2
3
4
Conference
THE COURT:
That was not a smile.
involuntary acid attack.
MR. SMITH:
Well, I apologize if I had any role in
that attack.
5
THE COURT:
6
MS. METTHAM:
7
8
That was an
Oh, you certainly had.
Your Honor, if I might just bring up one
issue, which is that -THE COURT:
But let's be sure we're finished on this.
9
So within a week you'll advise -- one, you'll give the City all
10
of the information, eyes only for attorneys; and within a week
11
if you're going to use any of these people, you will notify the
12
City within a week or, say, ten days so that they will have an
13
opportunity, if they choose to, to depose them.
14
MR. SMITH:
Very well.
15
MS. METTHAM:
Your Honor, my only concern with the
16
attorneys' eyes only is that, if you'll recall, when City
17
defendants had marked similar documents attorneys' eyes only,
18
plaintiff argued to the Court that because those complaints
19
included allegations against him, he should be able to see the
20
documents to defend himself.
21
attorneys' eyes only confidentiality and made them
22
confidential.
23
24
25
And so your Honor removed the
And my concern is that these documents similarly
contain allegations against the City and Detective Mauriello.
THE COURT:
Well, I think what's going to happen is
9
E1FBSCHC
Conference
1
when he designates these people, the basis for the eyes only
2
is, on the one hand, work product, arguable; on the other is
3
the blue wall problem.
4
these folks, the blue wall problem is out of it.
5
doesn't exist anymore.
6
7
8
9
10
MS. METTHAM:
If he's going to elect to use any of
I mean, that
So I would suggest, your Honor, if it
would be possible, that documents -THE COURT:
Excuse me.
So it seems to me the logical
conclusion is the attorneys' eyes only is lifted as to those
that he's going to use.
11
MS. METTHAM:
Yes, your Honor.
12
THE COURT:
Okay.
13
MR. SMITH:
Well, if you don't mind, your Honor, I'd
14
like to just get a little bit of delay into when ultimately it
15
has to be lifted.
16
17
18
But it doesn't have to be lifted in a week.
THE COURT:
No, except they're going to have to--
they're going to have to get these people in.
MR. SMITH:
The lawyers have to get this person in.
19
We don't have to have, you know, public knowledge of who these
20
people are.
21
22
23
THE COURT:
That's fine.
Okay, at that point.
But at
some point that's gone.
MR. SMITH:
Yes.
Certainly when the person is listed
24
in a pretrial order, stands up and takes an oath and starts
25
testifying, for sure.
10
E1FBSCHC
Conference
1
THE COURT:
Oh, yes, but before then.
2
MR. SMITH:
Well before then.
3
THE COURT:
Yes.
4
MR. SMITH:
But we're not there yet.
5
THE COURT:
Well, let's just say as to anybody that is
6
going to be used, a month before the designation is over.
7
MS. METTHAM:
8
THE COURT:
9
10
I understand that.
Could you just clarify that?
I mean a month before-- I'm saying
mid-February.
MS. METTHAM:
So to be clear, your Honor, you've
11
stated that plaintiff shall provide the names and contact
12
information to City defendants within -- was it a week?
13
THE COURT:
Right.
14
MS. METTHAM:
And then anyone that plaintiff wishes to
15
use as a witness in this case, he must identify them as a
16
witness within that same week.
17
February 14th--
18
THE COURT:
19
MS. METTHAM:
20
21
22
And then a month from now, say
As to those that are designated.
-- as to those that are designated, the
attorneys' eyes only designation.
THE COURT:
Right.
Okay.
Yes.
Anything else?
Good-bye.
23
MS. METTHAM:
Thank you, your Honor.
24
MR. KRETZ:
25
I would just like the Court to be aware there are 13
Walter Kretz for Defendant Mauriello.
11
E1FBSCHC
Conference
1
named defendants that have yet to be deposed.
There are
2
anywhere, it seems to me, from half a dozen to a dozen
3
nonparties who have yet to be deposed.
4
THE COURT:
So you're saying mid-march, May.
5
MR. KRETZ:
I just want the Court to be aware of that.
6
THE COURT:
There's another little problem that's
7
8
9
hanging out there, which is the PBA and this same -MS. METTHAM:
this for Stinson.
Your Honor, I think you're mistaking
The Stinson oral argument is scheduled for
10
next week and the matter with the PBA is with regard to the
11
Stinson case.
12
THE COURT:
13
MS. METTHAM:
14
THE COURT:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you, all.
(Adjourned)
Okay.
One thing off your plate for now.
Well, it's our weekly get-together.
Thank