Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 490

LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Memorandum of Law in Support of Motions in Limine and Motions to Preclude Expert Testimony addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Alan Scheiner dated September 18, 2015. Document filed by Christopher Broschart(Tax Id. 915354 in his official capacity), 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 18, 2015
BY ECF
Honorable Robert W. Sweet
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007
Re: Schoolcraft v. 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 matter.
We write to respectfully request a page limit extension for the Memorandum of Law in Support
of City Defendants’ Motions In Limine from 25 to 50 pages, and to separately file a motion to
preclude the testimony of four experts, in whole or in part, with a 25 page memorandum.
Plaintiff has listed over 200 exhibits and 56 witnesses, including 4 expert witnesses, in
his JPTO. The medical defendants offer three experts. In contrast, City Defendants do not offer
any expert witnesses. In light of the large number of exhibits and witnesses listed by plaintiff,
the need for expert-related motions, and the complexity of the issues in the case (including
Monell issues), the City Defendants believe that an increase in the Court’s usual page limits are
required.
We have conferred with the other parties and although plaintiff agreed to a 50 page limit
for motions in limine, plaintiff has not responded to our request to file a separate motion directed
at the preclusion of expert witness testimony. Given the large number of plaintiff experts,
requiring expert motions to be included within the same page limit as other motions would be
unfair to the City defendants, who will be making motions directed at several expert witnesses.

Hon. Robert W. Sweet, U.S.D.J.
September 18, 2015
Page 2 of 2
Accordingly, the City Defendants respectfully request a page limit extension for the
Memorandum of Law in Support of City Defendants’ Motions In Limine from 25 to 50 pages
and a 25 page limit for a separate Memorandum of Law in Support of City Defendants’ Motions
to Preclude Expert Testimony.
We thank the Court for its consideration in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Alan Scheiner________
Alan Scheiner
Senior Counsel
cc:

All counsel (via ECF)