Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 258

LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Gregory J Radomisli dated May 23, 2014 re: Response to plaintiff's counsel's letter. Document filed by Jamaica Hospital Medical Center. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Radomisli, Gregory)

M ARTIN C LEA R W A TER & B E L L

llp

C O U N S E L O R S AT LAW
220

EAST

42 N D

TELEPHONE

(212)

STREET,

NEW

697-3 122

YORK,

NY

FA CSIM ILE

10017-5842

(212)

949-7054

www.mcblaw.com
G r e g o r y J . R a d o m is l i
Partner
DIRECT DIAL: [phone]
E-MAIL: [e-mail]

May 23, 2014
BYECF
AND FAX [phone]
Hon. Robert W. Sweet
United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007-1312
Re:

Schoolcraft v. Jamaica Hospital Medical Center
Civil Action No.
10 CV 6005 (RWS)
MCB File No.
667-82153

Dear Judge Sweet:
We represent the defendant Jamaica Hospital Medical Center (“JHMC”) in the abovereferenced matter. This letter is submitted in opposition to plaintiffs counsel’s May 22, 2014
letter requesting that Your Honor order JHMC to produce two additional witnesses for
depositions.
Three weeks before the discovery cut-off date, plaintiffs counsel states that he wants two
depose two JHMC psychiatrists: Dr. Khin Mar Lwin and Dr. Indira Patel. Both those physicians
were identified as potential witnesses when JHMC responded to plaintiffs Stage I
Interrogatories on August 5.2011. If plaintiffs counsel had wanted to take those depositions, he
could have noticed them at any time within the past three years.
Furthermore, a conference was held before Your Honor on March 13, 2014. At the
conference, the following exchange occurred at page 8 (a portion of the transcript is attached as
Exhibit “A”):

GJR/da
2258036_1.DOC

W E S T C H E S T E R CO UN TY O F FIC E

N A S S A U C O U N T Y O F F IC E

N E W J E R S E Y O F F IC E

2 4 5 MAIN S T R E E T

9 0 M E R R IC K AV EN U E - SU ITE 401

7 4 4 BROAD STREET

W H IT E P C A IN S, NY 1 0 6 0 1

E A ST M EA D O W , NY 1 1 5 5 4 - 1 5 7 6

NEWARK, N J 0 7 1 0 2

T E L E P H O N E (914) 3 2 8 -2 9 6 9

T E L E PH O N E (516) 2 2 2 -8 5 0 0

TEL E PH O N E (973) 7 3 5 -0 5 7 8

FA C SIM IL E (9 1 4 ) 3 2 8 - 4 0 5 6

F A C S IM IL E ( 5 1 6 ) 2 2 2 - 8 5 13

FA C SIM ILE ( 9 7 3 ) 7 3 5 - 0 5 8 4

May 23,2014
Page 2

MR. SHAFFER:

If I may ask, could the Court preclude plaintiff from noticing any
additional depositions of people he has got identities of at this
point? We are so late in the game here.

THE COURT:

Oh, yes. All right. Unless there is something that's presented
today, there are no further discovery demands — depositions,
documents, etc., etc. — unless there is something that comes up
today.

Accordingly, plaintiffs counsel is not entitled to take any more depositions. The fact that
one of the City witnesses offered testimony that contradicts portions of the JHMC chart is not an
adequate excuse to justify prolonging discovery. Indeed, if obtaining contradictory testimony
was sufficient to continue engaging in discovery, discovery would never end.
Finally, plaintiffs counsel has already taken 13 depositions, and he plans to take two or
three more before the June 13, 2014 discovery cut-off date. Pursuant to Rule 30(a)(2)(A) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs counsel was required to seek leave to take Dr.
Lwin’s and Dr. Patel’s depositions, which he has now done. According to the Rule, the Court
must grant leave to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(2).
Rule 26(b)(2)(C) states that the Court must limit the extent of discovery if (i) the
discovery sought can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient or less
expensive or (ii) the party seeking discovery has had an ample opportunity to obtain the
information. In this case, plaintiffs counsel clearly had ample opportunity to take Dr. Lwin’s
and/or Dr. Patel’s depositions, and he should not be permitted to take them now. If, however,
this Court determines that plaintiffs counsel is entitled to ask the doctors about “the sources, if
any for their notes” (plaintiffs 5/22/14 letter at p. 15), then is it respectfully requested that Dr.
Lwin, who actually wrote the note in question, be permitted to submit an Affidavit attesting to
her belief that Sergeant James had relayed the information to her, as reflected in her note.
Thank you for Your Honor’s attention to this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
MARTIN CLEARWATER & BELL

Gregory J. Radomisli (GJR 2670)

2258036J.DOC

llp

May 23,2014
Page 3

cc:

BYECF AND E-MAIL
Attorneys for all parties

2258036_1.DOC