Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 392

LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Summary Judgment Reply Papers; Extension of Time to Submit a Pre-Trial Order and Motions In Limine; and Adjournment of the Trial Date addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Ryan G. Shaffer dated February 13, 2015. Document filed by Christopher Broschart(Tax Id. 915354 in his official capacity), Timothy Caughey(Tax Id. 885374 Individually), Kurt Duncan(Shield No. 2483, Individually), Joseph Goff(Tax Id. 894025 Individually), William Gough(Tax Id. 919124, Individually), Elise Hanlon(in her official capacity as a lieutenant with the New York City Fire Department), Shantel James(Shield No. 3004 in his official capacity), Theodore Lauterborn(Tax Id. 897840 in his official capacity), Michael Marino, Gerald Nelson(Assistant Chief Patrol Borough Brooklyn North, Tax Id. 912370 in his official capacity), New York City Police Department, Frederick Sawyer(Shield No. 2576 in his official capacity), The City Of New York, Timothy Trainer(Tax Id. 899922, in his Official Capacity).(Scheiner, Alan)

THE CITY OF NEW YORK

LAW DEPARTMENT

ZACHARY W. CARTER
Corporation Counsel

100 CHURCH STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007

RYAN G. SHAFFER
Senior Counsel
E-mail: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

February 13, 2015
BY ECF
Honorable Robert W. Sweet
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007
Re:

Schoolcraft v. City of New York, et al., 10 Civ. 6005 (RWS)

Your Honor:
I am Senior Counsel in the Office of Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel of the City
of New York representing City defendants in the above-referenced matter. I write to respectfully
request that the Court: 1) extend the City defendants time to submit their reply memorandum of
law from February 25, 2015, until March 6, 2015; 2) extend the time for the parties to submit
their joint pre-trial order and motions in limine until 14 days after the Court decides the pending
motions; and 3) adjourn the trial date from April 6, 2015 until a date after the Court as decided
the pending motions. Counsel for co-defendants Mauriello, Isakov, Aldana-Bernier, and Jamaica
Hospital Medical Center consent to this request. We have conferred with plaintiff’s counsel
regarding this request and the parties were unable to reach agreement.
I. Extension of Time to Submit Reply Memorandum
The Court’s current deadline for defendants to submit reply papers in support of their
respective summary judgment motions of February 25, 2015 must be extended until March 18,
2015, because plaintiff disregarded the Court’s November 5, 2014 Order, granting him an
extension of the Court’s 25 page limit to 50 pages per motion. Rather than either comply with
that order, or request additional pages, plaintiff submitted an opposition memorandum totaling
130 pages, 84 of which are devoted to opposing City defendants’ motion (a 68% increase over
the allotted 50 pages). Responding to the excessive submission will necessarily require more
time than was contemplated under the original schedule. To cure the prejudice to the City
defendants, defendants respectfully request that Your Honor either strike the excess34 pages, or

grant City defendants an extension of time until March 6, 2015 within which to submit their
reply papers. This is a 64% extension, directly comparable to plaintiff’s excess 68% of briefing.
II. Extension of Time to Submit Pre-Trial Order and Motions in limine
At the October 29, 2014 status conference in this matter the Court set a deadline of March 4,
2015, for the parties to submit a pre-trial order and motions in limine. The Court, along with all
parties chose that date in anticipation of the parties’ summary judgment motions being fully
briefed by January 28, 2015. As it stands now the motions have not yet been fully briefed, and
that is through no fault of any defendant. In fact the briefing schedule was adjusted twice at
plaintiff’s request (See Docket Entry Nos. 339 and 372). Moreover, another extension of the
briefing schedule is now necessary due to plaintiff’s disregard of the page limitations set by the
Court.
The pending motions address several material aspects of the case and could substantially
narrow or otherwise affect the evidence that will need to be presented at trial. Therefore, even
with the current briefing schedule, the parties cannot reasonably submit a pre-trial order or
motions in limine without a decision on the pending motions. Indeed, the original schedule was
set contemplating that the motions would be decided in advance of pre-trial submissions. As
such, defendants request that the Court extend the time for the parties to submit the pre-trial
order and motions in limine until 14 days after the Court decides the motions for summary
judgment.
III. Adjournment of the April 6, 2015 Trial Date.
As the Court is aware, similar to the date for pre-trial submissions, the April 6, 2015 trial date
was set in conjunction with the original briefing schedule. As that schedule has already been
adjusted twice due to plaintiff’s requests, the trial date must also be adjourned so that the Court
has an opportunity to review the voluminous motion papers and decide which claims and
defendants will remain.1
The Court has not yet scheduled a date for oral argument on the aforementioned motions.
The City defendants, at least, are requesting oral argument, and the Court has indicated that the
earliest date argument can be held is March 25, 2015.2 It is unlikely that a decision on the motion
1

Under the current schedule the trial date is 30 days following motions in limine. In the City
defendants’ view it is unnecessary to set a specific trial date until the summary judgment motions
are decided. In that regard, however, we wish to advise the Court that we understand that
defendant Mauriello is unavailable from May 12 to May 17 due to a family vacation that cannot
be rescheduled.
2

We note that not all parties are available for the March 25, 2015 date for oral argument. Based
on conferral among counsel, April 1, 2015, five days before the current trial date, is the first
possible date that all are available for oral argument.

2

can be issued with enough time for the parties to prepare pre-trial submissions and make the
necessary parties available for trial.
There are other reasons as well for an adjournment of the trial date. The Passover Holiday
begins on April 3, 2015 and runs through April 11, 2015. As at least some of the individuals
involved in trial of this matter will require time to observe. Additionally, to the extent any
potential juror observes Passover; they will likely seek excusals from jury duty, significantly
altering the jury pool in this matter.3
In the alternative, should the Court not grant the request to extend the trial date until after
summary judgment motions are decided, the City defendants respectfully request that the trial
date be adjourned at least to April 20, 2015. The Court previously noted April 20 as a possible
trial date, and it would represent a mere two-week adjournment.
Therefore, we respectfully request that the Court grant the adjournments set forth above.
Respectfully,
/s/
Ryan G. Shaffer
Senior Counsel
Attorney for City Defendants
TO:

Nathaniel Smith (By ECF and E-Mail)
Attorney for Plaintiff
111 Broadway, Suite 1305
New York, New York 10006
Gregory John Radomisli (By ECF and E-Mail)
Martin Clearwater & Bell LLP
Attorneys for Jamaica Hospital Medical Center
220 East 42nd Street 13th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Brian Lee (By ECF and E-Mail)
IVONE, DEVINE & JENSEN, LLP

3

In addition, as the Court is aware, my former co-counsel on this matter, Suzanna P. Mettham, is
no longer assigned to this case because she has left the Law Department. As a result, another
Senior Counsel, Alan H. Scheiner, was assigned to this matter on February 9, 2015. Having no
prior familiarity with this case, Mr. Scheiner would benefit from additional time to prepare for
trial.

3

Attorneys for Dr. Isak Isakov
2001 Marcus Avenue, Suite N100
Lake Success, New York 11042
Bruce M. Brady (By ECF and E-Mail)
CALLAN, KOSTER, BRADY & BRENNAN, LLP
Attorneys for Lillian Aldana-Bernier
1 Whitehall Street
New York, New York 10004
Walter A. Kretz , Jr. (By ECF and E-Mail)
Seiff Kretz & Abercrombie
Attorney for Defendant Mauriello
444 Madison Avenue, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10022

4