Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al
Filing
487
MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 485 Letter filed by Adrian Schoolcraft, re: August 18, 2015 and August 21, 2015 Letters. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 9/1/2015) (ajs)
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 485 Filed 08/25/15 Page 1of4
LAW Ol'l'lCE OF
NATHANIEL
NA THA NlKL
B. SMJTH
n.a.tbMnlth@~_tnaiLcotn
-·----
~ 7- ~ ~~ ---::----.~ ·.~-~~-"··.~
' l J ~ >.,
~
t·
~ '·~ .
f
~I
r· .--.
i
:-- •
1 "'
1
l
B.
100 WALL STREET - 23'd Fir.
NEw Yoax4\NE Yoirn: 1000::.
'
:-:~-·=1
'
I
:
' · . ·:
e-' .·
•1·'··':.. ·... ,.,, ,,_, FH.EO
·1'\lf ,, ""
I {II .1\..•, . . .. . . - ~
\.
~
•. + .
1
\
I'-··---
·----~-
Tin.. :..?12-221*700~
FAX. 212·2U0-10HO
~
.kDt1fl1
I\ 1.1AI~L n.-_~·-~j'f)~_t
~
I
SMITH
ATTORNEY AT I.AW
-~
3:±
~
~'}
Au.~6s1\zs:°Qof5 1
' . .
""
...--·--·· , .. f·:.:l.
t
i1
I
..
f
. : ~
. i i ~-~~~ :.
Honorable Robert R. Sweet
United States District Com1 Judge
Southern District of Ne\\' York
500 Pearl Street
Nev,: York, New York I 007
.... l
>.
·
fl J ·~~'
~~ ~
,. '
/
.
'~ ·~~
W"il-4!
lJUDGE S'.Ji~~r~~~~.:_:i~.~ .__ ;: :::; ::;
~~
\!,
.
:.'1'
...
Schoolcraji v. The City of Nt:::w York, et al.,
10-cv-6005 (RWSJ(DCFJ
Di:ar J
Sweet:
On behalf of the plaintift~ l am writing to the Court in response to Alan
Scheiner's August 18, 2015 and August 21, 20 l 5 letters to the Court. In his
1
August l 8 h letter, Mr. Scheiner complains, on behalf of City Defendants, that
plaintiff
named two police practices experts on our Proposed Pretrial Order as
potential witnesses to be called at trial. Jn his August 21 ;t letter, he complains, on
behalf of the Ci Defendants, JHMC and Dr. Isakov, about the proposed pre-trial
order filed by the plaintiff. \Vhile all of these issues should have, in the first
instance, been resolved by all counsel conducting a good faith meet-and-confer,
Mr. Scheiner has instead determined to pepper the Court with his objections and
a result, we are required to respond.
needless letters.
71u~ August !811; Letter A
the Two
l:~rpert.<;
City Defondants argue that since both expe11s authored plaintiff's expert
report on police practices, testirnony from both experts would be cumulative and
inadmissible at trial.
The City Defendants' demand that plaintiff's Proposed Pretrial Order list
>o
t~ 7- V)
f!?,/-1.s
vo-
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 485 Filed 08/25/15 Page 2 of 4
')
LAW OF'FlCE OF'
NA THANIEL
13.
SMITH
only one police practices expert is without merit and should be denied. First, the
Proposed Pretrial Order clearly states that the list of witness names provided by all
parties are witnesses that the party mav call or seek to call to trial. If one expert
covers the subject matter plaintiff seeks to introduce in his case in chiet: there will
be no need to call a second expert. Certainly, the Court would disallow duplicate
or cumulative testimony - an issue that can readily be resolved at trial by proffer.
There is no good reason to disallow a witness simply on what one party thinks may
be grounds for objection two months prior to trial.
Second. City Defendants knO\v full well that plaintiff's two police practices
experts bring di fforent experience and expertise to the issues of police practice in
issue here. City Defendants deposed each of plaintiff's police practices experts
separately and sought to highlight specific and distinct areas of expertise of the two
experts. Defendants now seek to game any pcrcei vcd distinctions between
plaintiffs police practices expens by excluding one at trial. The Court should deny
this motion. In the very unlikely event that the plaintiff ,vill repeat with one expert
the testimony of another expert, we are confident that the Court will be able to
manage the introduction of evidence during the trial in the typical ways by
directing the parties to avoid repetition. But that decision cannot in any
meaningful way be made at this juncture, vvhere neither expert has testified.
lmpo11antly, we note that the City Defendants fail to point to any specific evidence
that they content wi II necessarily be repeated at trial.
The August 2
About the Plain!i[fs Proposed Pre-Trial Order
The City Defendants claim that the plaintiff's filing of his proposed pre-trial
order was ''late" yet they ignore several impm1ant facts. First, the version that the
defendants unilaterally filed contains plaintiff's contentions as well as a list of
witnesses and exhibits as of that date, and thus the City Defendants' argument that
they have been prejudiced ides over the fact that they knew of and had this
information at the time.
Second, the City Defendants do 11ot mention the fact that three days before
the deadline, the City Defendants dumped several hundred pages of newly
produced materials into the plaintiff's lap. And to compound the document
production stunt, City Defendants had the temerity to fault the plaintiff for not
being ready to
forward with the filing and to object to any kind of extension,
despite being required by the City Defendants' o\vn delays in producing documents
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 485 Filed 08/25/15 Page 3 of 4
3
LAW 01•v1cg OP
NATIL\.NIEL
B.
in discovery.
Third, the City De fondants claim that the plaimiff failed to sufficiently
identifv trial exhibits. While it is certainlv correct that there were an isolated
.
number of exhibits that \\'ere not, in the light of the defendants' comments,
suf1iciently identified, vast portions of the exhibits were properly identified. For
example, our designations of ''PDX" or "PMX'' or "POX'' refer to plaintiffs
deposition exhibits, or plaintiff's exhibits filed in support of or in opposition to the
motions f(Jr sLm1mary judgment. Since the deposition exhibits were provided to the
defendants in discovery and at the depositions and since the exhibits in support of
plaintiff's motion fcJr summary judgment and in opposition to the defendants'
motions for summary judgment were served and filed in this action, the claims that
the defondants do not have the exhibits and thal they are insufficiently identified
should be rejected. And to the extent that we have not sufficiently identified a
document, we have undertaken to do so and \vill continue to do so. Indeed, the
defendants have noted in their pre-trial order that they intend to move in limine on
September 2015 to exclude documt~nts not sufficicnlly identified and we are
continuing t.o undertake to resolve any legitimate concern that a party may have
regarding the identity of exhibits.
.
Fourth, the defendants have failed to provide proper designations in their
pre-trial order, which we intend to address in our motion in limine. For example,
the City Defendants have suggested that they may want to read the deposition of
the plaintiff's father. (Defendants' JPTO, date filed, 8-14-15 at p. 15 & 17 n. 15.}
Similarly, the Medical Defendants have stated that they "may" seek to offer
deposition testirnony of numerous witnesses at trial. (Id at 19. ). The Court's
Individual Rules, bo\;.,T·ver, specifically require ""la] designation by each party of
deposition testimony to be offered in its case in chief, with any cross-designations
other party.'' (Individual Rule 3 (ix).) The defentlants, in
and objections by
violation of this rule and established practice, have failed fo tlcsignate by page and
line those specific portions that they "may'' wan I to read to the jury, an obvious
departure from rcqui red practice and the Court's lndi vi dual Rules.
another example, the City Defendants have designated as their Trial
Exhibit J-6 a recording mad\.' by the plaintiff on October 31, 2009 of his tour that
is over sevc.·n hours long, we contend that the Citv
dav. Since the n;'.ConJi
...
Defendants have failed to sufficiently identify vvhich portions of the entire, daylong recording they will seek to offer into evidence. Similarly, the Medical
Defendants have failed to sufficiently identify their exhibits. See, e.g. Defendants'
.
.
-----------------~--·-··
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 485 Filed 08/25/15 Page 4 of 4
4
LAW OPP!CE OP
NATHANIEL
B.
SMITH
JPTO, date filed R- I 4 l 5, at p. 4 l (unspecified ''records of' Dr. Lamstein and Dr.
Sure). As noted, it is plaintiffs position that all these types of issues should be
addressed in a mecHmd-confcr, not an endless stream of letters to the Court.
*
*
*
The City Defendants repeatedly claim prejudice but offer nothing concrete
to support it. Indeed, it appears that the City Defendants' recent letter-writing
campaign has little to do with the proffered merits and more to do with the City
Defendants' real agenda, which is to delay the Octoher 19, 2015 trial date. See
Scheiner Letter, dated August 21, 2015. alp. 3 (suggesting a conference "to
discuss when a rrial could reasonable be had in light of plaintiff's delays.'')
For all these reasons, the re4uest to strike the plaintiff's August 20. 2015
filing should be denied and the Court should direct the pat1ies to meet and confer at
mutually convenient date before the motions in limine are due on September 7,
2015 to resolve any remaining issues on the pre-trial order submission. For
reasons far too obvious to the Court, the suggestion that the trial should be moved
must
rejected.
Respectfully submiued,
Nathaniel B. Smith
By ECF
All Counsel
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?