Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al
Filing
394
ORDER granting 392 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. The summary judgment motion will be heard on submission on March 6. Trial date will be on April 20. The remaining requests are granted. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 2/13/2015) (ajs)
--·--------·-----------
tiD)ig©igawig
\lffi
h''Lr.;D
.C.
.l 1
0-
VI
f"EB ·13 2015
I
.J~DGE SWEET CHAMBE~
ZACHARY W. CARTER
RY AN G. SHAFFER
100 CHURCH STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007
Corporation Counsel
Senior Counsel
E-mail: rshaffer@law.nyc.gov
Phone: (212) 356-2386
~
Fax: (212) 156-~
~A~~kY~7c~
BYECF
Honorable Robert W. Sweet
United States District Judge
SouthernDistrictofNewYork
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007
Re:
~,,, ~ ?1/ce..-1
~
' /}
#
~
/Z..U" c< a.z..e'
~h? &-r
~
cZ'?:t-f.
-/-5 ~·
2
~";:!- · ~
~ ~~'9 r-i.<'~~~
--~ /
~~
7tJJ'1,
I{ ·
Schoolcraft v. City of New York, et al., 10 Civ.
Your Honor:
~ ...
~ tJJ dv
I[) ~./...j-
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 plaintiffs 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 tota\\ng
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 plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs 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,
Isl
Ryan G. Shaffer
Senior Counsel
Attorney for City Defendants
TO:
Nathaniel Smith (By ECF and E-Mail)
Attorney for Plaintiff
11 l 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 Jsakov
2001 Marcus Avenue, Suite NlOO
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?