Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 433

LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time for Pre-Trial Submissions and for the Trial Date to a date several weeks after any decision on summary judgment addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Alan H. Scheiner dated April 21, 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, 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)

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 21, 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
in light of the continued pendency of summary judgment motions to request that the Court
definitively adjourn the trial until sometime after May 2015. This will allow the parties a
reasonable time for the court to resolve the summary judgment motions and prepare for trial in
light of that resolution. The interim period will also allow the parties an opportunity to attend to
meaningful settlement discussions, which cannot occur under the current conditions of an
impending trial of uncertain date and scope. We have spoken with plaintiff’s counsel regarding
this application but have not reached agreement on the matter.
At the conference on April 13, 2015, we understood the Court to indicate that a trial
before November 2, 2015 was extremely unlikely, in light of the continued pendency of the
summary judgment motions and plaintiff’s declared intent, set forth in Mr. Smith’s letter of April
8, 2015, to have a four-week trial with over 30 witnesses (presumably for plaintiff’s case alone),
including several proffered experts, for which plaintiff has issued over 20 subpoenas (19 of
which were served on the City’s counsel for present or former City employees).
Despite these plans, Mr. Smith suggested on April 13 that the plaintiff would narrow its
case to 2 ½ weeks, for plaintiff’s case only, if that would allow time for a trial in May. The
Court indicated that the earliest that a trial would commence would be May 4, 2015 (assuming a
decision on summary judgment in approximately one week), allowing for a two-week trial until
the Court’s previously scheduled criminal trial would commence on May 18, 2015. The Court
also indicated that it hoped to have a summary judgment decision in about one week and to have

a conference in about ten days (from April 13) in which it would ask the parties to address
scheduling and settlement.
As the City’s counsel noted at the conference, plaintiff’s estimate does not leave time for
the City to present its own case, even if plaintiff could fit his case within the two-week window.
Every trial has delays, and much expense and time would be wasted if a mistrial were necessary
because defendants did not have adequate time to present a case, which seems inevitable under
the scenario envisioned by plaintiff.
So far plaintiff has not taken any steps to narrow its case. Plaintiff has not withdrawn any
of the nineteen subpoenas served on the City’s counsel, or otherwise indicated that any of the
witnesses will not be needed. The City and other defendants will of course also have their own
witnesses, and must plan for the maximum possible scope of the trial in the absence of a
summary judgment decision.
A May 4 trial would unreasonably shorten the period between a decision on the summary
judgment motion (which has not yet been issued) and the submission of a pre-trial order,
proposed jury instructions, voir dire questions, and motions in limine. The Court had previously
ordered that the parties should have 14-days in which to make pre-trial submissions after a
decision on summary judgment. As the City set forth in its letter of April 6, neither the parties
nor the Court contemplated making pre-trial submissions on or after the trial date itself, without
any time for response by the parties or consideration by the Court. A period of less than two
weeks between a summary judgment ruling and the trial date would necessarily leave an
insufficient time for the parties to prepare and for the Court to consider pre-trial submissions.
For these reasons, the City respectfully submits that the potential but unlikely May 4 trial
date imposes an unreasonable burden for the City, especially given the number of witnesses that
it is expected to have available and prepared for a trial of uncertain scope and timing.
Accordingly, the City respectfully requests that the Court definitively adjourn the trial
date until a date that is certain to be several weeks after the Court’s ruling on summary judgment.
This will allow the parties, in the interim, to attend to serious settlement negotiations, which are
not possible under current conditions.
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

2

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