Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al
Filing
466
FILING ERROR - WRONG EVENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU - JOINT MOTION to Strike Document No. 464 . Document filed by Christopher Broschart(Tax Id. 915354 in his official capacity), Christopher Broschart(Tax Id. 915354 Individually), Timothy Caughey(Tax Id. 885374 Individually), Timothy Caughey(Tax Id. 885374 in his official capacity), Kurt Duncan(Shield No. 2483, Individually), Kurt Duncan(Shield No. 2483 in his official capacity), William Gough(Tax Id. 919124, Individually), William Gough(Tax Id. 919124, in his Official Capacity), Elise Hanlon(in her official capacity as a lieutenant with the New York City Fire Department), Elise Hanlon(individually), Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, Shantel James(Shield No. 3004 in his official capacity), Shantel James(Shield No. 3004 Individually), Theodore Lauterborn(Tax Id. 897840 in his official capacity), Theodore Lauterborn(Tax Id. 897840, Individually), Michael Marino, Michael Marino, Steven Mauriello(Tax Id. 895117 in his official capacity), Steven Mauriello(Tax Id. 895117, Individually), Gerald Nelson(Assistant Chief Patrol Borough Brooklyn North, Tax Id. 912370 in his official capacity), Gerald Nelson(Assistant Chief Patrol Borough Brooklyn North, Tax Id. 912370, Individually), Frederick Sawyer(Shield No. 2576 in his official capacity), Frederick Sawyer(Shield No. 2576, Individually), The City Of New York.(Shammas, Cheryl) Modified on 7/30/2015 (db).
ZACHARY W. CARTER
Corporation Counsel
THE CITY OF NEW YORK
LAW DEPARTMENT
100 CHURCH STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007
CHERYL SHAMMAS
Senior Counsel
phone: (212) 356-2406
fax: (212) 356-3509
cshammas@law.nyc.gov
July 29, 2015
BY ECF & EMAIL (Andrei_Vrabie@nysd.uscourts.gov)
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 the City Defendants in the above-referenced action. I
write to respectfully request that the Court strike Plaintiff’s Reply Memorandum of Law in
Further Support of his Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 464) and decline to consider any
of the arguments contained therein on grounds that the filing was untimely. Defendants Jamaica
Hospital Medical Center and Steven Mauriello, the other parties who filed briefs opposing
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, also join in this application.
Pursuant to agreement between all parties, and as so ordered by this Court on July 17,
2015 (Docket Entry No. 458), July 23, 2015 was the due date for all Reply memoranda in
support of the motions for reconsideration filed by plaintiff, the City Defendants, Mauriello and
Jamaica Hospital Medical Center.1 All parties complied with that deadline except plaintiff, who
served and filed his Reply in the late afternoon of July 24, 2015. At no point did plaintiff request
an extension from any defendant or the Court; seek leave of Court to file after the deadline; or
even acknowledge, apologize for or explain plaintiff’s failure to meet the deadline.2
1
All parties had previously been granted a one-week extension of time, on consent, from the
original deadline of July 17, 2015.
2
In addition, plaintiff’s memorandum exceeds by four (4) pages the Court’s 10-page limit for
reply memoranda, without having requested permission to do so. Although plaintiff was
responding to more than one opposition brief, consent and leave of Court ought to have been
Continued…
Hon. Robert W. Sweet, U.S.D.J.
July 29, 2015
Page 2 of 2
The late filing engenders substantial prejudice to the defendants because it permitted
plaintiff’s counsel additional time to prepare their Reply over and above that allowed to the other
parties, and afforded plaintiff’s counsel an opportunity to peruse the arguments contained in
defendants’ reply briefs and respond to or otherwise anticipate them. A simple request for
additional time by plaintiff could have avoided both, but the plaintiff chose instead to flout the
deadline. The Court would be well within its discretion to strike the brief and not consider the
arguments contained therein on these grounds. See, e.g., Brown v. City of Syracuse, 648 F. Supp.
2d 461, 467-468 (N.D.N.Y. 2009) (granting defendants’ motion to strike and disregarding
plaintiff’s motion in limine and supporting submissions for untimeliness); Collins v. Washington,
520 Fed. Appx. 577, 578 (9th Cir. 2013) (“The district court did not abuse its discretion in
granting defendants’ motion to strike [plaintiff’s] untimely submissions.”); Carvajal-Uzcategui
v. INS, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 656 (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 1994) (granting INS’s motion to strike
petition for review of BIA's order because the filing was untimely); United States v. Galaviz, 645
F.3d 347, 363 (6th Cir. 2011) (granting government’s motion to strike untimely reply brief
concerning evidence suppression).
Accordingly, defendants respectfully request that the Court strike Plaintiff’s Reply
Memorandum of Law in Further Support of his Motion for Reconsideration (DE # 464) and
decline to consider any of the arguments contained therein. We thank the Court for its
consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Cheryl Shammas
Cheryl Shammas
Senior Counsel
Cc.:
All parties (via email and ECF)
sought for this as well. This is the second time that plaintiff has exceeded Court’s limits on the
length of briefing without seeking the consent of the parties or leave of Court.
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?