Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 272

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Suzanna Publicker Mettham dated 9/22/2014 re: Defendants request to file twenty-five additional pages for their impending summary judgment motion. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 9/23/2014) (ajs)

09/2~/2014

MON

14~30

~002/003

FAX

THE CITY OF NEW YORK
ZACHARY W. CARTER

Sul.ANNA Pl.Jill.JOO;}( METIHAM

LAW DEPARTMENT

Cmpor·atirm Cmm.vel

Senior Cow1sel

ptionc: (212) ;i 5c,-2:i 72
fax· (212) 7~8-9776

100 CITURCTI STREET
Nnw YORK, NY 10007

•mellhum@luw. ny~. ~uv

September 22, 2014

A!.¥ l!A.ND DELIVERY &

t~'AX

Honontble Robt;lrt W. Sweet
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York l 0007

USDCSDNY
.;
DOCUMENT
1
.1
ELECTRONICAI_,Lv FILED }!

Re: Schookrafl v. The City of Now
10-CV-6005 (R WS)

York,-2L."!1~

DOC#:
DATE FILED:

~-23;~

Your Ilonor:
I atn an Assistant Corporation Counsel in tho office of Zachary W. Carter,
Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, assigned to represent City Defondants in th[j
above-referenced matter. I write to respectfully request that the Court grant City Defendants
twenty-live additional pages for their impending summary judgment motion, which is due on
October 24. 2014. Such a request is necessitated by the foot thut plu.inliff has interpused 18
causes of action against 16 separate City Delendants, not including 8 soparatc theories of Monell
fo1hility, und has plead a 397 paragraph Second Amended Complaint.

City Defendants attempted to confer with plaintiff to streamline the motion
practice to only those claims truly at dispute in this matter, but plaintiff is unwilling to wilhdruw
any causes of uction or remove any defendlints. Dlie to the substuntiul nuture of' the motion
pradke, City Defendants have alreltdy begun the process or dralling their papers, and have come
to the unenviable conclusion that they need twenty-five additional pages to address adequately
the allegations in plaintiffs prolix complaint. City Defendants note that even with this extension
lo lirty pnges lotul, em;h 1,;hiim would be ufforded lei:-:::; thm1 three double~sp~1ced p<tges lo counter
plainti11's allegations. Accordingly, City Dofondant.s ask that the Court permit them twenty-five
additional pages for their motion for summruy judgment.

I thank the Court for its time and consideration of this request.

~·erz-~I
~~1(_)5 t!JJ

~
~- ·

r-~ 2.. ~ '/ ~

Re~c=
Suzanna Publicker Mcttham
Senior Counsel
Speciu.I F~derul Litigation Division

I
1

09/2~/2014

cc:

MON 14!30

1;,!1003/003

FAX

Nathaniel Smith (By Fax)
Attorney /(.Jr Pluintif.f
Gregory John Radomisli (By Fax)
MARTIN CLEARWAl'l::R & Bl~LL LLP
Attorneys for Jama; ca 1Iospital lvledicaf Center
13rian Lee (Uy Fax}
IVONE, DEVINE & n~NSEN, LLP
Attorneys fhr Dr. lwik l.wkov
Bruce M. Rrady (Ry Fax)
CALLAN, KOSTER, BRADY & BRENNAN, LLP
Attorneys for Uflian Aldana~Bernier
Walter A. Kretz, Jr. (By Fax)
SCOPPli'ITA SUfl<'F KRUTZ & Al3ERCROMl31E
AtLorneyf(Jr Defendant Mauriello

2.