Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 230

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from David S. Korzenik dated 3/12/2014 re: I write to request that Mr. Rayman's time to respond to the motion be extended to Friday, March 28, and that the City's time to reply be extended accordingly, to Friday, April 4. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered., ( Responses due by 3/28/2014., Replies due by 4/4/2014.) (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/13/2014) (lmb)

03-12-14;10:54

;Mi IlerKorzenikSommersLLP

;2126883996

12128057925

# 21

MILLER KORZENIK SOMMERS LLP

I!!<;i fvLt\DISON 1\ VENue NEW YORI<.. NEW VOI{K !0012-~702

TEL.2!1-75;?-'J200· f.,\X 212-(I!-<:H-.V)%, WWW.tvlKSLLX.COM

March 12,2014

DELIVEn.y BY .FAX

The Honorable Robert W. Sweet

United States District Court

Southern District of New York

500 Pearl Street

New York, New York 10007

JUDGE ~/

Re: Schoolcraft v. The City of New York, ct. at.) lOMcv-6005

Dear Judge Sweet:
I represent Graham Rayman) a reponer who is not a party to this action but who has been
served with a subpoena by the City seeking documents and other material it claims is relevant to
this case. Mr. Rayman asserted a reporter's privilege in objecting to the SUbpoena.
On March 5, the City filed a Motion to Compel Mr. Rayman to comply with the
subpoena. Under Local Rule 6.1, the date for a party to respond to a discovery motion would be
March 12. Twrite to request that Mr. Rayman's time to respond to the motion be extended to
Friday, March 28, and that the CHy's time to reply bc ex.tended accordingly, to Friday. April 4.
This is Mr. Rayman's first request for an extension on this motion. I have spoken to counsel for
the City~ who consents to the extension and joins in this request.

.-­

1,-"

I

.

/ DOCU!\lEN f
ELE(TRONIC /\LL\
DOC #:

DATE

(_;JIY

.-----""" __~.

' I)SDC SDNY

FILEI~:

t I.;

YOU~

Daw:;r0T7?

,

,

3ilJI'tJj

cc: Suzanna Publicker Mettham,

Assistant Corporation Counsel

__

Attorney for Graham Rayman

[e-mail]

>6

----------­