Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 468

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Walter A. Kretz, Jr. dated 7/23/2015 re: Courtesy copies of motions. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 7/29/2015) (ajs) Modified on 7/30/2015 (ajs). (Main Document 468 replaced on 7/30/2015) (ajs).

&

SCOPPETTA SEIFF KRETZ

r;:---.::.: ·---: ::- .- ----- - - ---=-

1
l;1 l r--.: }{

ERIC A. SE/FF

.,I-'•

>

~l

1

.._

.;y

CHARLES D. ABERCROMBIE*

MARIANA OLEN KO

I

'. 1·

I!I
.

:;i
'i!

•

- ' r "-.'
. I' l'l -v ,·u :1V ....
" .

WALTER A. KRETZ, JR.

ABERCROMBIE

444

30TH

L:: r l ! { iJ 'H . -. i\ I TY Fll ,FD

r)( -' ,
I.: \/..,

FLOOR

NEW YORK,N.Y.10022-6926

+-:::---Jb1Q

,~

[phone]
FAX [phone]

.'

U2·~rE riit.~:J°"-=il? JJ
__

•ALSO ADMITTED IN CT

MADISON AVENUE

1· •

,, .

l

ROLAND R. ACEVEDO
NICHOLAS SCOPPETTA
OF COUNSEL

·J~: 1 Y t~:~~Pl5.:,'"":·::·....~ ..; ..

'.•~t

I! fl '1 : ··~. ': '•' . ..:' '·I :'
I

'

•.•

!

,, !,,,, '
Honorable Robert W. Sweet
United States District Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
N e\v York, NY l 0007
Re:

1i

r··1 ..

!~

J"! ') ..

11
"j

~ r~~[~~~x:_:' ' ., :---'.~:·:~~
e.,. .. -·

~1i~

Sth~~okrn[l_y:,_Thc City ofNc\\_j,<~rn-k.

t?t al.. 10-CV-6005 (RWS)

Dear Judge Sweet:
On behalf of defendant Steven Mauriello. enclosed arc courtesy copies of
his notice of motion and memorandum of law in support of' his motion for reconsideration
oflhe dismissal of his counterclaims, filed electronically on June 2, 2015, as well as a
courtesy copy of our Reply Memorandum and a Declaration with annexed exhibits SM
DN and SM DO in further support of that motion, filed electronically earlier today. We
respectfully request the Court's acceptance for filing of the reply memorandum at a
length of 15 pages, and acceptance for filing of the Reply Declaration with two additional
exhibits··~ excerpts from plaintiffs deposition and a copy or a letter to the Court on
March 7, 2014, relating to a discovery dispute.
In connection with the submission of the underlying motions for summary
judgment in February and March of this year, I requested in correspondence with the
Court the Court's permission to submit certain designated exhibits under seal. I renew
that reqt1est as I had not received a response, and some of the sealed exhibits arc
particularly relevant to the matters raised on the motion for reconsideration. Specifically,
I renew my request for permission to file under seal SM Exhibit CR, containing the IAB
report commencing with Bates numhcr NYC 10123 through 10156, SM Exhibit CK, with
pages from the QAD Report-· D000508, 510-15, 517-19, and 541-43, SM Exhibit DD,
containing copies of complaint reports and related documents, and SM Exhibit DM. SM
Exhibit DD includes complaint reports discussed in the QAD report and marked at one
session of plaintilT's deposition as Defendants' Exhibits K through P. They bear Bates
numbers SMOOO I through SM0060. SM Exhibit DD also includes complaint reports
produced in discovery by the City Defendants bearing Bates numbers NYCOOO 11596-

56?
'--"'

U0dJJ

7- )_r/,1..5

-

----------

--------------~

(
!

("s1u0m11,)op , Sllll!pu:::_p( I Al!.) ;'.ltp .t(:f s.1;1qumu s.1n;H 0tp ,\1uo p;))l::11pu! peq
i\f p0.1.10:m!

J

'i;isuno:>

un pun J.rno.) ;;nn 01 Sl!tlflfX;i .mo JO x0pu! uu Ell!P!·\O.td u:HIA\)

·gz:()