Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 228

OPINION #104065 re: 200 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 175 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, 174 Declaration in Support of Motion,. MOTION for Reconsideration re; 175 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, 174 Declaration in Support of Motion. filed by Steven Mauriello. Given the reasoning above, Defendant Mauriello's motion for reconsideration is granted. Defendant has leave to file an answer amended with counterclaims. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/13/2014) (lmb) Modified on 3/17/2014 (ca).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------x
ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT,
Plainti f,
10 Civ. 6005 (RWS)
- against
OPINION
CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
De

s.

----------------------------------------x
A P PEA RAN C E S:
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
LAW OFFICE OF NATHANIEL B. SMITH
111 Broadway
Suite 1305
New York, NY 10006
By:
Nathaniel B. Smith, Esq.

Attorne

for Defendant Maur

110

SCOPPETTA SEIFF KRETZ & ABERCROMBIE
444 Madison Avenue, 30th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10022
Walter A. Kretz, Jr., Esq.

Sweet, D.J.

Defendant
("Maur

110"

or

Opinion,
(RWS),

Schoolcra

has

of

moved

the

Ci

of

Steven

pursuant

Court's
New

6139647

nion"),

21 Opinion" or "
an

(S.D.N.Y.

Nov.

York,

21,

("Plaintiff"

to

No.

Local

e

21,

2013

Civ.

10

2013)

6005

(the

"November

denying Defendant's motion for leave

answer amended with countercla

Schoolcraft

Mauriello

November

---------------------~-----------------

2013 WL

file

v.

ctor

In

"Defendant")

reconsideration

6.3

to

Deputy

or

"Schoolcraft")

Plaintiff Adr
opposes

Mauriello's

mot

Based
Maur

on

the

conclusions

set

forth

the

cts

below,

Defendant

llo's motion is granted.

Prior Proceedings

tIed

A

provided

s

recitation

opinion

(S.D.N.Y.

November

21

this

May
Opi

6,2011),

May

6005,

2011 WL 1758635,

and

November

on,

at

*4-7.

the

Familiarity with

assumed.

1

6,

case

dated

Schoolcraft v
*1

of

10 Civ.

in

Court's

of

2011,

21
those

is
see
at
see

facts

is

Defendant
reconsi

ration

submission,
only,

Mauriello

on November

briefing

and the mat

was

filed

25,

2013.

submitted

stant

the

motion

The motion was

by

Mauriello

r

hea

and

on

Plaintiff

r was marked fully submitted on December 18,

2013.

The Motion For Reconsideration Is Granted

Standard Of Review

The

standards

along with

R.

governing motions

Civ.

P.

59

are

grant reconsideration where the
demonstrates

an

avai

of

lity

"intervening
new

evidence,

error or prevent mani
Trust

Co. ,

502

(quotation marks
253

F.

Supp.

F.

the

same,

rty moving
change
or

the

in

Local
and

to

Bd.,

law,

correct

Supp.

372,

715

(S.D.N.Y.

375 76

a

)i

(S.D.N.Y.

Parrish v.

2003)

the
clear

~~~

Atl. Ai

2007)

Sollecito,

("Reconsideration may
st

review the court's decision in light of the avail
(citing Vi

court may

controlling

need

6.3

r reconsideration

be granted to correct clear error, prevent mani

evidence.")

a

Rule

st injustice." Henderson v. Metro. Bank &

and citations omitt

2d 713,

under

Ltd. v.

ustice or
i1ity of new

Nat'l

ation

_ _~~~~~~~2-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

956 F. 2 d 1245, 1255 ( 2 d Ci r. 1992)).

2

Reconsideration of a

court I s

prior

Local

r

Rule 6.3 or Rule 59 "is an extraordinary remedy to be employed
ngly

In

the

interests

of

finality

scarce judicial resources." Ferr

B.V.

and

conservation

v.

of

Inc.,

No .

............. ----~----------------~--~------

12

Civ.

2013)
605

2650(RWS),

2013

WL

4082930,

(quoting Sikhs for Justice v.
(S.D.N.Y.

at

*1

Nath,

893 F.

Accordingly,

2012) .

(S.D.N.Y.

Aug.

Supp.

standard

7,

2d 598,

of

review

applicable to such a motion is "strict." Shrader v. CSX Transp.,
Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995).

The burden
Court

overlooked

were

before

is on

movant to demonstrate that

controlling

it

on

"'materially have

the

cisions
nal

or

516,
Tonga

(quoting Morser
517

(S.D.N.Y.

Partners,

granting

[a

can

point

to

overlooked.").

v.

AT&T

motion,

facts

and

that

that

In

F.

Supp.

554,

rmation

S s.

684

F.3d

36,

52

might

controll

repeat "arguments al
"advance new facts,

F.

is

Supp.

Inc.

v.

standard

for

strict,

and

rally be denied unless the moving party

11

A

(S.D.N.Y.

715

("[TJhe

reconsideration]

mot

557

see also Analytical Surveys,

1989))i

L.P.,

reconsideration

material

influenced its earlier decision.'" Anglo Am.
940

1996)

or

the

rty

decisions
seeking
efed,

or

data

that

reconsideration

the

may

court
ne

considered and decided,

issues or arguments not previously pre
3

If

nor

to

the

Court."

Schonberger

(S.D.N.Y. 1990)

The
matters

decisions

Serchuk,

742

F.

Supp.

108,

119

(citations omitted).

reason

that

v.

were

and

for

the

rule

"overlooked"

to

prevent

confining

is

the

to

reconsideration

"ensure

practice

the

of

a

finality
losing

to
of

party

examining a decision and then plugging the gaps of a lost motion
wi th
No.

additional

matters."

97-690(MBM),

2000 WL

(citation

and

reconsideration

Polsby
98057,

the apple,

not

at

St.
*1

marks

quotation
"are

v.

vehicles

and [the court]

Martin's

(S.D.N.Y.

Jan.

omitted) .
for

taking

[should]

Press,

Inc.,

18,2000)

Motions

a

for

second bite

at

not consider facts not

in the record to be facts that the court overlooked." Rafter v.
Liddle,

288

Fed.

quotation marks
and

App'x

768,

omitted).

769

Thus,

strictly apply Local

Rule

(2d
a

6.3,

Cir.

2008)

court must
so

as

rulings on previously considered issues,

to

In

Litig.,
16,

re

Stearns

08 M.D.L.

2009)

reargue

Bear

("A

those

Cos.,

No.1963,

motion
issues

for

Inc.

avoid duplicative

and to prevent the rule

Sec. ,

reconsideration
considered

like the way the original motion was
quotation omitted) .
4

final

Derivative

2009 WL 2168767,

already

and

narrowly construe

from being used as a substitute for appealing a
See

(citation

at *1
is

when

resolved.")

and

ERISA

(S.D.N.Y.

not
a

judgment.

a

Jul.

motion

party does

to
not

(citation and

Defendant Mauriello Raises Overlooked Facts That Warrant
Reconsideration

The
but

for

st

Defendant

Mauriello

regarding
reconsideration.

As

an

reconsideration motion is

has

provided

ing

initial matter,

are based upon a portion of a rec
produced by
before

he

his
ed

motion

portions

to
of

strict,

explanation

his

motion

Mauriello

countercla

conversation that was not

intiff and was discove

Plaintiff
2009,

additional

warrants

that

s

a

by Defendant one month

amend.
reco

Defendant
ngs

made

cont
on

t

including a "critical conversation" between Plaintiff and

his fat

aintiff subsequently produced only the altered

recordings.
the in

Mauriello's

propo

counterclaims

are

s

brie

the

instant motion provide

additional color to the circumstances surrounding

were

conversation at
first

produced

2012

or "
of P

upon

ion gained from this "critical conversation."

Defendant's

of t

7,

Oct

y")

issue.
to

allegedly al te

Defendant

Mauriello

by Defendant City of New York

when the City De

iff's April 9,

sition

provided to

("C

recordings
in

or

around

y Defendant"
110 copies

2012 production to City Defendant.

5

Over

the

course of the next

10

Mauri

additional

four weeks,
documents

City Defendant

and

to

recordings,

which

were

understood by Mauriello to include duplicates of the reco
produced

by

Pla

iff's

whi

did

the

Plaintiff.

recordings
not

contain

produced
counsel

knew

by

nothing

month

of

Defendant
the

the

of

October

"critical

City

Mauriello

Defendant

the

7,

only

2009

conversation,

conversation,"
did.

recorded

whi

Mauriello

conversation

t

and

his

until

one

motion for leave to file an answer amended with

countercl

was

1

whereby they

learned

of

the

recorded

conversation through the book TEE NYPD TAPES by Graham A. Rayman.
Pl

not provided an explanation as to why Plaintiff's

iff

produced

re

provided

November 21 Op

to

Mauriello

ctor

that

favors

reconsideration

current pace of discovery in the matter.
his

motion

to

still far from complet
for three
filed
the

years.

("Marino")

The

In t

have

amend,

is

the

At the time Mauriello

document

production was

even though the case had been pending
two months between the time Mauriello
his motion for

his motion to
parties

altered.

on overlooked these critical facts.

Another

filed

was

depo

Plaintiff,

and Theodore Laute

reconsideration,
Michael

rborn")

inspection of the 81st Precinct

and completed

Jamaica Hospital.
6

Marino

According

to

Mauriello,

revisi ted on

none
account

indicated
Marino

he

and

of

the

wishes

le.

matter

not

and

to

conduct

and

have

Plaintiff

countercl
a

second

for

to

has

session

reasons

requested

at

issue

his al

Court

deposition

would

would

only

in

the

be

also

of

the

unrelat

extensions

to

of

Defendant's counterclaims do not al

already

assures

discovery

depositions

counterclaims

scovery s

discovery.

completed

Lauterborn

Defendant's

new

of

case,

and

any

110

Maur

d harms can be covered at his
minimally

expand

the

scope

of

It does not appear that the counterclaims will cause

delay

to

this

already

protracted

significantly expand its scope,

and

long

discovery

ors that were overloo

or
in

the November 21 Opinion.

With t

above

Continental

N.A.

1993), was mispl
F.2d 843,

instance.

Evans,

856

(2d Cir.

motion

upheld
to

Me

r

10

(2d Cir. 1983), and

F.3d 1293,

1298

(7th Cir.

and ------------------------------------------~
State Teacher

to

amend

is more

suffi

ent

applicable

to

In Continental Bank,

district
amend

1981),

in this

Circuit Court found a two-year delay to

704 F. 2d at 47.

defendant

v.

In Evans,

defendant's

also

the Court's reliance on Evans

Sch. Dist., 704 F.2d 44, 47

v.

654

ctors,

an

court's
answer
7

decision
to

add

deny

the

motion.

the Seventh Circu
to

refuse

to

counterclaims

allow
where

defendant

waited more

than

rs

two

and

the

require additional discovery. Continental Bank,
In

this

instance,

Mauriello

did

not

know

amendment

would

10 F.3d at 1298.
of

the

"critical

conversation" until one month before filing his motion to amend,

actions.

In addition,

lay,

Defendant's
[but]

scope of

proposed

it will

cant

by Plaintiff's

an amendment with counterclaims would not

significantly expand
Thus,

in signi

lay was caus

and this

not

already delayed discovery.

amendment

"may

unduly prejudice

result

in

Plaintiff.

ll

[some]
Fluor,

654 F.2d at 856.

Defendant
several
additional

s

the

t

s

Mauriello

November

"alter

Sikhs
Justice,
--------------------

893 F.

F.3d at 257), and recons

has

provi
21

additional

Opinion

conclusion
Supp.

d

to

These
court,

(quoting Shrader,

ration is warranted.

8

overlooked.

reached by the

2d at 606

color

II

70

Conclusion

Given
motion

for

the

reasoning

reconsideration

is

above,
granted.

Defendant
Defendant

file an answer amended with counterclaims.

It is so ordered.

New York, NY
March I
2014

J

ROBERT W. SWEET

9

Mauriello's
has

leave

to