Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al
LETTER REPLY to Response to Motion addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Nathaniel B. Smith dated 8-18-15 re: 473 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Nathaniel B. Smith dated 8-13-15. LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Nathaniel B. Smith dated 8-13-15. . Document filed by Adrian Schoolcraft. (Smith, Nathaniel)
LAW 0PPICE OP
ATTORNEY AT LAW
100 WALL STREET - 23rd Fir.
NEw YoRK. NEw YoRK 10005
August 18, 2015
Honorable Robert W. Sweet
United States District Judge
Southern District ofNew York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007
Schoolcraft v. The City ofNew York, et al.,
Dear Judge Sweet:
I write to the Court as one of the plaintiffs counsel to respond to the
defendants' August 17, 2015 letter. Since the defendants are now willing to
adjourn the motion in limine dates, there is no possible prejudice to the plaintiffs
request that the JTPO deadline be moved to August 21, 2015. As stated in their
August 17th letter, when I originally requested this adjournment, the City objected
the ground that "they would be prejudiced due to the compression on the time
between the JPTO submission and the later deadline for motions in limine."
(August 17, 2015 letter at p. 2.) Now the defendants are all willing to have
motions in limine filed by September 17, 2015. Thus, any claim of prejudice has
been addressed and the plaintiffs request should be granted.
While these facts ought to resolve the matter, the City's personal attack
requires a brief response. First, all parties exchanged witness lists and exhibit lists
on the same day and the suggestion that plaintiff was late is false.
Second, all the parties submitted lists of exhibits that in one way or another
LAW OFFICE OF
had issues, such as incomplete or insufficient designations or, in the case of the
City, the identification of exhibits for documents that had never even been
produced in this action. Indeed, the City admits that fourteen of its trial exhibits
were based on documents that were produced on August 11th, which was three
days before the deadline. The suggestion that "nothing prevented plaintiff from
reviewing the City defendants' [new] exhibits," conveniently glides over the fact
that the documents recently produced consisted of over two hundred pages of
materials that have to be read and analyzed and rebutted in a matter of days when
counsel's time was already jammed with all the other matters required for the
preparation of a joint pre-trial order. Indeed, all I was requesting from the City
and now from the Court was a reasonable opportunity to review the materials and
assert any appropriate objection.
Third, the City states that the plaintiff failed to assert objections to the City's
exhibits or Mauriello's exhibits and that any objections have been waived. That is
not our understanding of how the Court's objection procedure operates. As noted
in the City's own list, a single "*" means that a party has no objection on
authenticity grounds and a double"**" indicates that the party has no objection on
any ground. Thus, the absence of a single or double "*" necessarily means that the
party is preserving all objections, which is precisely what the plaintiff stated in the
draft of the pre-trial order we provided to the defendants. (JPTO, dated August 14,
2015, at n. 24; Dkt # 477.1.)
For these reasons, the JPTO deadline should be adjourned to August 24,
2015; the motions in limine deadline should be adjourned to September 17, 2015;
and opposition should be filed on October 9, 2015. In addition, we request that the
Court schedule a final pre-trial conference at noon on the Wednesday before the
trial, i.e., October 14, 2015.
Nathaniel B. Smith
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?