Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 486

LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to deem plaintiff's request for extension of time to file the JPTO granted and extend time for motions in limine to the agreed upon date of September 17 2015 addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Alan H. Scheiner dated September 3, 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), Frederick Sawyer(Shield No. 2576 in his official capacity), The City Of New York.(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]

September 3, 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.
We write to clarify the schedule in this matter. On August 13, 2015, plaintiff applied for
an extension of time to file the parties’ JPTO in this matter (Docket No. 473). On August 17,
2015, the City defendants (and other defendants) opposed the application, and requested that
should plaintiff be granted additional time that the motion in limine deadline for all parties be
likewise extended, to September 17, 2015 with oppositions due October 9, 2015 (Docket No.
478). On August 18, 2015, plaintiff responded by consenting to the requested extension of the
motion schedule, should his application to extend the JPTO deadline be granted (Docket No.
481).
On August 14, 2015, the defendants filed their proposed JPTO in accordance with the
schedule last agreed-upon by all counsel (Docket No. 477). On August 20, 2015, plaintiff filed
his proposed JPTO, in accord with the schedule that he had previously requested (Docket No.
483). The City defendants requested that the Court strike the JPTO as untimely (Docket No. 484
) and plaintiff responded on August 25, 2015 in further support of his application (Docket No.
485).
As the Court has not ruled on these disputes, after consultation with the Court’s clerk by
all parties on August 31, 2015, and to avoid further prejudice, the City defendants deem

Sweet, J.
September 3, 2015
Page 2
plaintiff’s application to have been de facto granted, and accordingly the extension to the motion
deadline requested by the City defendants and agreed to by plaintiff should be in effect. The
City defendants will act according to that schedule, absent further Order from the Court, and
respectfully request that the Court “So Order” this schedule at the Court’s convenience.
For the Court’s convenience, we note the following additional motions that remain
pending and which could affect the substance of the trial in this matter, including motions in
limine and the evidence to be offered:
•

City Defendants’ Motion for Bifurcation of Monell Issues, fully briefed as of July
23, 2015 (see Docket Nos. 438, 439, 449, 452 and 461)

•

Plaintiff’s and City and Mauriello Defendants’ Motions for Reconsideration, fully
briefed as of July 24, 2015 (see Docket Nos. 438, 439, 441, 453, 456, 462, and
463)

•

Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Reply Brief on Motion for
Reconsideration, fully submitted as of August 18, 2015 (see Docket Nos. 467,
471, 475, and 476)

•

City defendants’ motion to require plaintiff to designate only one of two police
practices experts to testify at trial, fully briefed as of August 25, 2015 (see Docket
Nos. 482, 485)

We thank the Court for its consideration in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Alan H. Scheiner
Senior Counsel
Special Federal Litigation Division
cc:

All counsel by ECF.