Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 429

LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to Make Pre-Trial Submissions After a Ruling on Summary Judgment and to Adjourn the Trial Date addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Alan H. Scheiner dated April 6, 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), 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, The City Of New York, Timothy Trainer(Tax Id. 899922, in his Official Capacity).(Scheiner, Alan)

ZACHARY W. CARTER
Corporation Counsel

THE CITY OF NEW YORK

LAW DEPARTMENT
100 CHURCH STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007

ALAN H. SCHEINER
Senior Counsel
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

April 6, 2015
BY ECF & EMAIL
([e-mail])
Honorable Robert W. Sweet
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007
Re: Schoolcraft v. The City of New York, et al.
10-CV-6005 (RWS)
Your Honor:
I am a Senior Counsel in the office of Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel of the
City of New York, assigned to represent City Defendants in the above-referenced matter. I write
to respectfully request that the Court: 1) adjourn the April 20, 2015 trial until five (5) weeks after
the pending motions for summary judgment have been decided, and; 2) set dates for the
submission of a Joint Pre-Trial Order (“JPTO”) and other pre-trial submissions set forth herein.
By way of background, on October 29, 2014, the Court ordered that trial in this matter
should take place on April 6, 2015. The Court further ordered that the JPTO be submitted on
March 4, 2015. When these dates were set, the schedule provided five weeks from the date that
summary judgment motions would be fully submitted until submission of the JPTO, and an
additional month after the JPTO submission before trial commenced.
Plaintiff then twice requested an extension of time for the filing of summary judgment
motions, and on February 13, 2015, the City defendants requested one extension in light of
plaintiffs’ over-sized brief. These extensions ultimately adjourned the time for the summary
judgment motions to be fully briefed by thirty-seven (37) days to March 6, 2015, two days after
the date previously set for the JPTO.
On February 13, 2015, in response to a request by the City defendants for an adjournment
of the trial in light of the summary judgment schedule, the trial date was adjourned from April 6
to April 20, with pre-trial submissions due fourteen (14) days after a decision on the summary
judgment motion. See Docket No. 394. On March 20, 2015, the City defendants requested an

adjournment of the current trial date in light of the continued pendency of the summary judgment
motions, and the Court has not ruled on that application.
Presuming that no decision is issued today, under the current schedule the JPTO, motions
in limine and other pre-trial filings will not be due until after the April 20 trial date. We
respectfully submit that neither the Court nor any party intended this result, which would
frustrate the purposes of both summary judgment and pre-trial submissions to focus and expedite
trials and trial preparation.
Under these circumstances, an adjournment is in the interests of justice and judicial
economy, and will prevent undue prejudice to the parties. An adjournment would allow the
Court to further consider all parties’ summary judgment motions before trial; allow the parties a
reasonable time to craft pre-trial submissions and prepare for trial in light of the Court’s rulings;
and allow pre-trial submissions to be made sufficiently in advance of trial for the Court to fully
consider them. Absent the requested adjournment, or something similar to it, the interests of the
parties will be severely and unnecessarily prejudiced at the conclusion of a long and costly
litigation.
Accordingly, the City defendants propose that the Court adjourn the trial until five (5)
weeks after the pending motions are decided and set the following schedule for the exchange and
submission of pre-trial materials:
•

Four (4) weeks before trial: Plaintiff to provide defendants with his portions of the
JPTO

•

Three (3) weeks before trial: Parties to file the JPTO

•

Two (2) weeks before trial: The parties file motions in limine, and proposed jury
charges, verdict sheet, and voir dire questions

•

One (1) week before trial: The parties to file opposition to motions in limine and
responses to proposed charges, verdict sheet and voir dire questions

All defendants except Jamaica Hospital Medical Center 1 join in the request to adjourn the
trial date, but counsel for defendant Isakov has differing views on the precise schedule following
adjournment. 2 We have attempted to confer with plaintiff on the application, but have not yet
received a response.

1

Counsel for Jamaica Hospital have not spoken with their client on the question and therefore are unable to take a
position.
2
While all parties would benefit from an adjournment, the City is especially prejudiced by the current schedule
because the City is responsible for most of the witnesses and parties involved in this matter.

2

The City defendants thank the Court for its time and attention to these matters.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Alan H. Scheiner
Senior Counsel
Special Federal Litigation Division
cc:

Nathaniel Smith (By E-Mail)
Attorney for Plaintiff
Gregory John Radomisli (By E-Mail)
MARTIN CLEARWATER & BELL LLP
Attorneys for Jamaica Hospital Medical Center
Brian Lee (By E-Mail)
IVONE, DEVINE & JENSEN, LLP
Attorneys for Dr. Isak Isakov
Matthew Koster (By E-Mail)
CALLAN, KOSTER, BRADY & BRENNAN, LLP
Attorneys for Lillian Aldana-Bernier
Walter A. Kretz , Jr. (By E-Mail)
SCOPPETTA SEIFF KRETZ & ABERCROMBIE
Attorney for Defendant Mauriello

3