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)

1
1

2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10

11

E3ddschc
Conference
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------x
ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT,
Plaintiff,
v.

10 CV 6005 (RWS)

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et a l .,
Defendants.
------------------------------- x
New York, N.Y.
March 13, 2014
2:00 p.m.
Before:

11

12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21

21
22
22
23
23
24
24
25

HON. ROBERT W. SWEET, .
District Judge
APPEARANCES
NATHANIAL B. SMITH
Attorney for Plaintiff
JOHN LENOIR
Attorney for Plaintiff
MICHAEL A. CARDOZO
Corporation Counsel for the
City of New York
Attorney for City Defendants
BY: SUZANNA PUBLICKER METTHAM
RYAN G. SHAFFER
SCOPPETTA SEIFF KRETZ & ABERCROMBIE
Attorneys for Defendant Steven Mauriello
BY: WALTER A. KRETZ, JR.
MARTIN CLEARWATER & BELL LLP
Attorneys for Defendant Jamaica Hospital
BY: GREGORY JOHN RADOMISLI
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
[phone]

2
1

2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7

APPEARANCES CONTINUED
IVONE, DEVINE and JENSEN, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
Dr. Isak Isakov
BY: BRIAN E. LEE
CALLAN, ROSTER, BRADY & BRENNAN, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
Dr. Lilian Aldana-Bernier
BY:
PAUL F. CALLAN

9
10
11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

.

21
22
23
24
25
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
[phone]

3
1

THE COURT:
Please, be seated.
Thanks very much.
I am going to take as our text the March 5 letter from

2
3
4
5
6

7
8
9
10
11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21
22
23
24
25

the city.
Have all the witnesses now been identified by the
plaintiff?
MS. METTHAM: Well, your Honor, plaintiff identified
one witness.
However, he did so nearly a month after the Court
had ordered him.
THE COURT:
That wasn't quite my question.
My
question was, have all the witnesses now been identified?
MR. LENOIR:
Yes, your Honor.
I believe so from the
plaintiff's side.
THE COURT: All right.
OK.
So I think that sort of
takes care of that.
Who is the late witness?
MS. METTHAM:
Your Honor, the witness is an individual
by the name of Joe Ferrara.
City defendants seek to have him
precluded as a witness based on plaintiff's failure to comply
with the Court's order and the fact that plaintiff had known of
this witness for three-and-a-half years prior to the
identification.
THE COURT:
OK.
Is there a real problem with this
witness ?
MS. METTHAM: We don't believe he is relevant in any
way but -­
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
[phone]

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25

THE COURT: OK. All right.
So we've solved that.
Everybody has been identified.
Second, subpoenas.
Now, let's see if we could figure
this out.
The plaintiff has sought depositions of the Jamaica
Hospital defendants, correct? And we haven't agreed on -- you
haven't been able to work out whether or not those depositions
are going to be taken.
Yes?
MR. RADOMISLI: Well, they designated two emergency
medical technicians who were at the plaintiff's home. The only
issue is if your Honor needs to extend discovery, then
certainly they will be produced.
THE COURT: OK.
MR. LENOIR: We have also asked for the hospital to be
deposed, and we could not really discuss the time or who would
be the person representing the hospital for deposition.
MR. RADOMISLI:
They were supposed to serve a 30(b)(6)
notice and an identification.
So that hadn't been done.
THE COURT: That had been done?
MR. RADOMISLI:
Had not been done.
THE COURT: What is the problem?
MR. RADOMISLI:
I don't know.
They just haven't
served it.
They haven't identified anyone other than the two
EMTs is what I am trying to say.
THE COURT:
Do you want a 30(b)(6) witness from the
hospital? What do you want?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
[phone]

5
1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

MR. LENOIR:
To depose the hospital itself regarding
its policy -­
THE COURT: Yes. But I drove by the hospital the
other day and, oddly enough, it can't speak.
Now, who do you
want?
MR. LENOIR: We don't know who the hospital would want
to represent it, whether it is counsel or -- but somebody who
would speak on behalf of the hospital.
THE COURT: Well, it sounds like a 30(b)(6) witness,
doesn't it?
MR. RADOMISLI:
Yes.
THE COURT:
It sounds like you want to designate
somebody to testify on behalf of the hospital.
MR. RADOMISLI: About what?
THE COURT: Well, I suspect it is about the incident.
MR. RADOMISLI:
They've already deposed —
THE COURT: No. No.
I understand that.
But I don't
know what he wants to ask them. Nor do you.
But somebody
who -- you don't know who you want?
MR. LENOIR:
Well, we want, I guess, a 30(b)(6), but
someone to speak on behalf of the hospital regarding their
policies for admitting patients in the context of Officer
Schoolcraft.
THE COURT: OK.
I take it — wait a minute.
Let's
see if we can be clear.
Patients admitted under claims of
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
[phone]

6
1

what?

2

MR. LENOIR: Emotionally disturbed persons.
THE COURT:
OK. All right. We solved that.
You all
can get together on a schedule.
Now, subpoenas.
I mean, is that it for the hospital?
MR. RADOMISLI: As far as the hospital witnesses go?
THE COURT:
Yes.
MR. RADOMISLI:
I believe so.
THE COURT:
OK. How about the city?
MR. SHAFFER:
Your Honor, it is the city's position
that plaintiff, he waived his right to depose the witnesses he
is now seeking to depose by waiting until the last minute to
seek their depositions.
He has known about these witnesses who
are defendants since 2011, and then he seeks to depose them on
a two-week expedited schedule without conferring with anybody,
knowing full well that all of the other depositions took months
to schedule. And he does so in an attempt to basically garner
an extension of discovery from the Court by saying, oh, I
couldn't have possibly known who I wanted to depose without
deposing the first ten witnesses, which makes no sense because
he has known about all of these people since 2011.
In fact,
they were identified in his own initial disclosures, some of
them.
THE COURT:
Yes.
MR. SHAFFER:
So our position is that he has waived
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
[phone]

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21
22
23
24
25

his right to depose them and by waiting until the last minute
and then just unilaterally selecting dates to depose them.
THE COURT: What are we talking about in terms of
numbers?
MR. SHAFFER:
I believe seven additional witnesses,
all of whom their identities have been known for years in this
case.
THE COURT: These are not defendants?
MR. SHAFFER:
Six of them are defendants.
I believe
one of them is a nonparty city employee.
THE COURT: And the six defendants have not been
deposed?
MR. SHAFFER: No. And no formal notice was ever
served until, I believe, 28 days before the close of discovery,
seeking to depose them within a matter of two weeks.
THE COURT: And then who is the additional person?
MR. SHAFFER:
It is an NYPD sergeant who is not named
as a defendant but has been identified as a witness by both
sides, I believe. And he was not present on the night of the
incident.
THE COURT: All right.
So the plaintiff can take
those seven depositions and we'll talk about scheduling.
That
is something that you will have to work out but we'll talk
about i t .
MR. SHAFFER:
Your Honor.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
[phone]

8
1
2
3
4
5

6
7
8
9
10
11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21
22
23
24
25

THE COURT:
Yes.
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.
MR. SHAFFER:
OK.
THE COURT:
Now, document demands.
Do I have the
sense that that was resolved, or am I wrong?
MR. SHAFFER: Not resolved.
THE COURT:
OK. And the city's position is that the
document demands recently served are duplicative and largely
have been complied with.
MR. SHAFFER:
Some are duplicative.
The remainder for
the most part are just blatantly irrelevant to the case.
Just a brief example, your Honor:
Requests for
several years worth of logs relating to vehicles towed in the
81st Precinct, with no connection to Mr. Schoolcraft or any of
the defendants.
And it's the city's position that serving duplicative
and irrelevant complaints is an abuse of the discovery process.
THE COURT:
OK. Now, duplicative, that should be —
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
[phone]