Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 576

LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Alan H. Scheiner dated January 28, 2016 re: Request for Order Requiring the Production of Certain Documents and Information and Request for Extension of Time to Respond to Fee Application. Document filed by The City Of New York.(Scheiner, Alan)

ZACHARY W. CARTER
Corporation Counsel

THE CITY OF NEW YORK

ALAN H. SCHEINER
Senior Counsel
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

LAW DEPARTMENT
100 CHURCH STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007

January 28, 2016
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. Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, 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, representing the motion respondent City of New York (the “City”), in
connection with the trial of above-captioned matter.
The City writes to respectfully requests that: (1) the Court order the former plaintiff’s
counsel, Levine and Gilbert and Peter J. Gleason, who filed a fee application on and after
December 27, 2016 (Docket No. 564 et seq.), to produce to the Court and the City evidence of
their standing to file a fee application on behalf of plaintiff or have their application stricken; (2)
that the Court require all counsel to submit contemporaneous fee records in electronic form
sufficient to show whether the fee records were complete and contemporaneous as required by
the Second Circuit as the sine qua non for fee recovery; and (3) that the City be allowed an
additional four weeks to respond to the plaintiff’s application for attorneys’ fees, extending the
time from February 29, 2016 to March 28, 2016.1 Plaintiff’s counsel has refused their consent to
any of the relief requested and has failed to offer any compromise position.
The City is mindful of the Supreme Court’s caution that a “request for attorney's fees
should not result in a second major litigation.” Buckhannon Ed. & Care Home, Inc. v. W.
1

This is the second request for adjournment of time to respond to the motion; the first request for a two-month
adjournment, with the consent of plaintiff, was granted.

Sweet, J.
January 28, 2016
Page 2
Virginia Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 609 (2001). The fee application here,
however, already resembles a major litigation, and is more akin to a class action fee claim than
the sort usually submitted for a single plaintiff. Counsel demand over $4.2 million in fees and
costs, with an estimated 5,500 discrete time entries made by 17 individual attorneys and
paralegals, from nine separate law firms. Just some of the factors adding to the complexity and
burden of the fee application: (a) all counsel other than Nat Smith (and his associated counsel)
were terminated by plaintiff at one time or another, requiring plaintiff’s counsel to duplicate the
work of prior attorneys when hired or rehired; (b) the work claimed involves several state law
claims by or against private parties for which no attorneys-fees are available under Section 1988
(e.g., claims against the medical defendants and the counter-claim by defendant Mauriello); and
(c) there are serious doubts about the standing of some counsel to seek fees and the
contemporaneous nature of the time records submitted.
Moreover, plaintiff’s counsel have exacerbated the burden of responding to the
application. First, counsel failed to heed the Supreme Court’s admonition that “[c]ounsel for the
prevailing party should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours that are
excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, just as a lawyer in private practice ethically is
obligated to exclude such hours from his fee submission.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424,
434 (U.S. 1983) (“In the private sector, ‘billing judgment’ is an important component in fee
setting. It is no less important here.” (quotation omitted)); accord DiFilippo v. Morizio, 759 F.2d
231, 235 (2d Cir. 1985); see Toussie v. County of Suffolk, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127143, *2324, *30 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 2012) (denying fee application in its entirety, in part due to inclusion
of non-compensable elements). Plaintiff’s counsel made no attempt to pare from their
application fees related to non-compensable claims (e.g., plaintiff’s medical malpractice claims);
duplicative and redundant work by replacement or returning counsel; work on non-litigation
activities such as media publicity-seeking and lobbying for a criminal prosecution; or any other
excessive or non-chargeable tasks and time (other than work after the Rule 68 was accepted).
See, e.g, Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law at 3-4, 6, Docket No. 561 (including substantial time
spent on media relations and urging the District Attorney’s office bring criminal charges).

Second, plaintiff’s counsel refused to provide even readily available information
that would have facilitated analysis by the City: Excel versions of counsel’s fee
spreadsheets which would allow the City to organize and analyze the plantiff’s time
entries. Instead, the City was required to convert over 5,000 billing entries from scanned
images into a usable spreadsheet amenable to quantitative analysis; a time-consuming
and painstaking process that is not yet complete. Counsel refused even to negotiate
regarding several other targeted requests for additional information, such as counsel’s
original billing entries; work-product cited by the plaintiff’s submission; evidence of
actual hourly rates received; counsel’s retainer agreements; correspondence regarding
plaintiff’s reasons for the termination of counsel; and evidence of other fee claims made
in this case. See January 14, 2016 Email of Alan Scheiner to Plaintiff’s Counsel with
January 12, 2016 Letter Attached, Ex. A; Letter January 15, 2016, From Nat Smith to
Alan Scheiner, Ex. B.

Sweet, J.
January 28, 2016
Page 3

After considering in good faith plaintiff’s objections to discovery and in the
interests of expediency, the City does not at this time seek to compel a response to most
of its requests for information – although all of them are relevant to the application – and
seeks here only the bare minimum of additional information required to determine if
plaintiff’s application meets clear threshold requirements.
First, the right to attorneys’ fees under Section 1988 belongs to the plaintiff, not counsel,
and only counsel representing the plaintiff may file on his behalf. See, e.g., Venegas v. Mitchell,
495 U.S. 82, 87-88 (1990) (Section 1988 makes the prevailing party eligible for a discretionary
award of attorney's fees . . . . rather than the lawyer . . . .”)(quotations and citations omitted).
Here, attorneys Levine & Gilbert and Peter J. Gleason, Esq. (and associated persons) previously
ceased appearing as counsel for plaintiff in or about April 2013, after only three or four months
of work. See Affirmation of Richard A. Gilbert, Docket No. 564-2. ¶¶ 8-9. These attorneys –
who have not stated that they currently represent plaintiff – should be required to submit to the
Court and the City evidence of their authority to file a fee application on plaintiff’s behalf. In the
absence of such evidence produced in a timely fashion, the fee application should be stricken so
that the City need not be further burdened to respond to it.
Second, the City seeks production of all of plaintiff’s counsel’s original billing records in
electronic form, to determine whether they are in fact contemporaneous with the work alleged, as
is strictly required under Second Circuit law. Contrary to plaintiff’s position, there is no
authority that there is a blanket ban on discovery relating to fee applications. Even case law that
plaintiff has cited to the City indicates that although discovery is not favored, it is permitted at
least where there is “ample need.” Indu Craft v. Bank of Baroda, 1996 U.S. Dist LEXIS 14342
at* 18-19 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 1996) (citations omitted). There is such ample need here.
In the Second Circuit, under Section 1988 “[a]ll applications for attorney's fees, whether
submitted by profit-making or non-profit lawyers, for any work done after the date of this
opinion should normally be disallowed unless accompanied by contemporaneous time records
indicating, for each attorney, the date, the hours expended, and the nature of the work done. N.Y.
State Ass'n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 711 F.2d 1136, 1154 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1983). “The
records must be made contemporaneously, which is to say, while the work is being done or,
more likely, immediately thereafter. Descriptions of work recollected in tranquility days or
weeks later will not do.” Handschu v. Special Servs. Div., 727 F. Supp. 2d 239, 250 n. 5
(S.D.N.Y. 2010).
Because of the critical, threshold nature of this requirement, at least one Southern District
court has held that discovery of billing records would be appropriate where, as here, it is unclear
whether they were made contemporaneously. Handschu, 727 F. Supp. 2d 239 at 250, n. 5
(“While the City could have sought the original source documents in discovery and did not do
so, that does not shift the burden of proof and persuasion from Class Counsel, who are applying
for the fees.”) Plaintiff has argued to the City that computer printouts of electronic fee entries
are sufficient where they are contemporaneous. Tri-Star Pictures, Inc. v. Unger, 42 F. Supp. 2d
296, 302-03 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). But the time entries submitted here by most counsel (excluding
Nat Smith and his team) do not appear to be computer printouts from a time-keeping application,
but rather appear to be work-product compilations based on alleged billing entries.

Sweet, J.
January 28, 2016
Page 4
None of the purported billing entries from any counsel state the date or time that the
information was entered, and neither do most of the declarations submitted in support of the
application. The Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law asserts the legal conclusion that the records are
“contemporaneous,” without citation to any evidence. See Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law at
36. Even the most detailed statements on this subject – two declarations for only two of the
attorneys, asserting that some time information was recorded at the time of or on the day of the
work2 – does not establish that all of the required elements were recorded contemporaneously, as
Carey demands. Handschu, 727 F. Supp. at 250 (“Counsel's declarations do not say if the source
documents, which are not produced, gave specifics with respect to ‘the date, the hours expended,
and the nature of the work done,’ as Carey requires. Accordingly, the Court cannot place
complete confidence in the proof.) Certainly merely repeating the word “contemporaneous . . .
like a mantra,” as most of the declarations here do, is not enough. Id. Given the paucity of the
record on this issue, we ask the Court to require production of the original billing records to
allow a determination of whether plaintiff can in fact satisfy the Carey requirements. Id. 3
Finally, the City requests an adjournment of the time to respond to the application to
March 29, 2016, because of the extraordinary burden of the plaintiff’s application (which
became more apparent upon more detailed examination); the additional fee application filed after
the current deadline to respond was set; and the plaintiff’s refusal to accommodate the City’s
request for spreadsheets that could have substantially reduced the time required to respond.
We thank the Court for its consideration in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Alan H. Scheiner
Senior Counsel
Special Federal Litigation Division
2

The Declaration of Magdalene Bauza, ¶ 6, Docket No. 560-7 and the Declaration of Nat Smith, ¶ 21, Docket No.
560-2, like the declarations in Hanschu, assert that some billing information was recorded on a daily basis (or could
have been), but they do not state that the complete, final time record was created on a daily basis. See Smith, ¶ 21
(“My time records are regularly made, kept and prepared by me at the time or on the day that the time is spent
working for each of my clients and that information is then inputted into the “Time Slips” computer software
database.”) (emphasis added); Bauza, ¶ 6 (time records were input daily into MS Word and then converted to “Time
Slips,” and in other years the “Toggl” program “allowed” her to record time in “real time,” but not stating that she
did so). The other declarations seeking significant fees do not say even this much, and assert only the legal
conclusion that the records are “contemporaneous.” See Declaration of Gerald Cohen, ¶¶ 45, 48, 49, 50, Docket No.
560-4; Declaration of Joshua Fitch, ¶¶ 42, 43, 44, Docket No. 560-3; Declaration of Jon Norinsberg, ¶¶ 40, 42,
Docket No. 560-1.
3

The requested billing records will also facilitate attempts to resolve the fee dispute without the necessity of further
briefing, or a Court hearing and ruling, by allowing the City to evaluate whether plaintiff’s counsel’s billing records
in fact pass muster under Carey.

Sweet, J.
January 28, 2016
Page 5
cc:

All counsel by ECF

EXHIBIT A

Scheiner, Alan (Law)
From:
Sent:
To:

Subject:
Attachments:

Scheiner, Alan (Law)
Thursday, January L4,20L6 2:16 PM

'Gerald Cohen'; 'Nat Smith'; 'Jon Norinsberg'; 'Joshua Fitch'; 'John Lenoir';
'rgilbert@ levineandgilbert.com';'[e-mail]'
RE: Schoolcraft v. City
Letter to Schoolcraft Fee Counsel Jan 12 2016.pdf

Counsel, ln addition to the items requested in the attached letter of January t2,2016, previously emailed, the City also
requests the following:

Electronic copies with complete metadata of any work-product upon which plaintiff's counsel relies in their fee
application, including but not limited to the: (1) "cross-examination outlines"; "Opening Statement"; and the "global
case summary," all referred to on page 11 of your Memorandum of Law.
Billing records since January 1, 2010 showing all hourly rates actually paid by a client or by an adverse party for the time
of any timekeeper for whom fees are claimed in this case.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter,
Sincerely,
Alan

From: Scheiner, Alan (Law)
Sent: Tuesday, January L2, 20L6 7 :4L PM
To: 'Gerald Cohen'; Nat Smith; Jon Norinsberg; Joshua Fitch; 'John Lenoir'; '[e-mail]';
'

lawyers@sucklesch lesi nger,com'

Subject: Schoolcraft v, City
Counsel, Please see the attached letter. Sincerely,

Alan H. Scheiner
Senior Counsel
New York City Law Department
Special Federal Litigation Division
100 Church Street, Room 3-174
New York, NY 10007

(21213s6-2344
ascheine@ law, nvc,sov

1

ZACHARY W. CARTER
Corporation Counsel

THE CITY OF NEW YORK

LAWDEPARTMENT

ALAN H. SCHEINER
Senlor Counsel

IOO CHURCH STREET

NEWYORK,NY

phone: [phone]

IOOOT

fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

January 12,2016
Bv EmaÍl
Gerald Cohen, Esq.
Joshua Fitch, Esq.

Cohen & Fitch
The Woolworth Building
233 Broadway, Suite 1800
New York, New York 10279
Tel: [phone]
gcohen@cohenfitch,com
Jon Louis Norinsberg

Law Offices of Jon L. Norinsberg
225 Broadway, Suite 2700
New York, NY 10007
212-791-5396
Fax: [phone]
Emai I : [e-mail]

NathanielB. Smith
Law Office of Nathaniel B. Smith
100 Wall Street,23rd Floor
New York, NY 10005
212 227 7062

Fax:[phone]
Emai l: [e-mail]
Howard Andrew Suckle
Suckle Schlesinger PLLC
224West 35th Street, Suite 1200
New York, NY 10001
(2t2)-226-4200
Fax: [phone]

John David Lenoir
John Lenoir - Attorney

829 Third Street, NE

Washington, DC 20002
(202)-492-373e
Fax: [phone]
Email : john. [e-mail]
Richard A. Gilbert
Levine & Gilbert
I l5 Christopher Street

New York, NY 10014
(212)-64s-1990
Fax: [phone]
Email : r'qi I bertag) lev i neand gilbert.com.

Re:

Schooluaft v. The City of New York, et al,,l}-CY-6005 (RWS)

Dear Counsels:
The respondent City of New York (the "City") hereby requests production of the following
documents relevant to your claim for fees and expenses, which the City requires to fully evaluate and
respond to your application. It as you have indicated previously, the plaintiff refuses to provide any
additional fee information, we will take the matter up with Judge Sweet.

This request is without prejudice to any additional requests for discovery, including but not
limited to depositions of plaintiff s counsel, third-parties who signed affidavits in support of the fee
application, and/or the plaintiff. Including items previously requested, the City requests the
following:

L

Electronic Excel versions of fee spreadsheets submitted to the Court.

2.

Original billing, expense, activity and/or time records of this case for the attorneys and
other individuals for whom fees are claimed, including native electronic files with all metadata intact,
as well as hard copy mages of such files.

3. All bills, invoices, demands or requests for payment issued by any of plaintiffls lawyers
or law firms, whether issued to plaintiff, a third party, another counsel, or otherwise.
4.

All correspondence between and among counsel for the plaintiff relating to any disputes
concerning the payment of attorneys' fees or the possession of files relating to the case.

5. All correspondence between and among plaintiff and counsel regarding the termination
of the representation of any attorney for plaintiff.
6.

All

retainer or fee agreements between and among counsel for the plaintiff and/or the

All

documents concerning agreements to pay, demands for payment, requests to pay, or

plaintiff.

7.

2

payments of legal fees and/or expenses as or between
other than the City.

L

All

plaintifß and any defendants in this matter

documents reflecting payments received by counsel representing or previously

representing plaintiff in this case of legal fees and/or expenses incurred in this

case.

9. All documents reflecting any authorization of attorneys submitting fee applications in
this matterto representthe plaintiff inthis case, in generalor forthe purposes of any fee claim.
10.

All

documents reflecting any assignment by the plaintiff of any fee claim under Section

1988 to counsel submitting claims for fees and expenses in this case.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
lsl

Alan H. Scheiner
Senior Counsel
Special Federal Litigation Division

3

EXHIBIT B

L¿w O¡rx¡c¡: op
S¡"r

lrl¿-r¡raNrpr, Il.
.{ÌTo.EN.Ey

¿t

L¡r¡r¡

rrl¡

tOO l{ÀLL Sr¡sp¡
NEw Yoks., .ñ-srv y'onn lo<)og

Nr¡¡rxr;r.

B. $x¡rx
r¡r(b3oü(hO¡lmàiì,$r!t

'l'a,

etÈ .øz?.7cnz
rOil{:l

fÆ. Èià.ê0o

January 15, ?016

,\ lan Sc:hciner, ll:sq.
Senior Counscl
Special l"'ederal t.itigation Division
lf)Cl Church Srreet
New York. N.y. 10007

,S<:hoolcra.li v. (,'ítv* r¿i Neu, I,r¡t.A,

Denr Alan

lnde.u Nt¡, l0 Ctv. 6005 (R\I/S)

et al.

we arc in'eceipr'rvour rettr-r. daretJJanuar-v
P.2016 antl your.rbilurv_up
rcquestirg extensive discovery in co'nection
rvith
'ur'loti*'s l'rlr an nw¿irti of'reasoilable iñt'rneys' r:ees, costs antl e*p"nr"*, we
ernaì1, dated .lanuar¡' .I4,,20.1ó.

rt'riÌe to respont{ to this ì:equest
and to cl.aw your.attention to well-est¿lblished
" -' "
case
I a rv, rvh ic h con.s
i stenriy r*je.;t, ttres.,
type,. oi roqu.ri*.As -v*u knorv. the praìnrifI's arrorneys
in thís âclion rÌted rrr December
r6,
2015 and December.T:
nin*rs in support of rheir morions,
:-,1¡rir:y
including deraired records suppor.ring
rn* t"* motions. Ahave arrcady
beer provided rvith t'uil, comþie,r
uiå *,o",.mÌ)oraneous tirne reuords * consisring
ul'thci¡sands

jOll

;;;i;;"u

o'rime entries - in *,,pfoiioi-th* ,notion,
In your.January r2,n rette'
January l4tl'email. no**o*.,¡or^lequest
"v''ur
a.mas"sive quantity of riisr:overy
arrd resc"rve,rhe'"right" r.o
lake a.pnritiii"*-of'the prainril.t, his cou¡rser and the
a*o*rc.vs w'lro sr¡brnirred tjecrarations
arresting tn'th., ,,,rrkr;;;;ä, atÍorneys
ancr
their kro*'lecrge of'rhe plainrifT's
Norabr;.., ¡.ou cro n'r indjcare
in r¿our
and

;r;;r*r;i

I
)

r 'lhe
iretrs requesterì arc;
ilecuo|ic ¡:xccl versíorjs 0f'fee spreadshtets
sr¡bniiltetl to thc couil.
(ìiginal Irilliri.u c\Pcrrsc.ircr;'lt¡',rn,t'or:

;;iü:"
'i'

rll

tttt:¡ii

tir;;;;:;;;üi;;r,cas0iorrheå*onre.vsnrrd.lherinairi<iuarsf.ur

\ ¡a;rr¡v(l incltrrli.u nalivc clc'cirorri!'

diiì

,irrs' i¡rrtiçr's, rrg*ana:r 0r fiqr¡esl'
lìrr.payrnrnr

"i,i,',,¡l

rrrcr¡tlarä

issue.d b¡.an¡.

i",*,. r, ü"liiìì'ì,or,t .op"

nraÊr,s ù,.suùh

u'praÍnritï-r rawyórs of r.ri rìr¡¡5, *1,r'¡,.,

L.trw f)rrJitct

2

tlî

Þ,I¿,::r n¡lnr- B. Sr,rrr¡r
request trrat the extensi'c dùcumentation
submitted in supporr tlf the rnolions
is
inrt*u¿ rnake a fîrn.i..r,u* tjemantt

fiirlti,i:ilJ:',,ïy*lît'"rlr, 'ron"*ioii

rr.,r

l'hat is noT pcrnírreÍ.un.d these
types of'rrrunderbuss demands
are regular.rv
i,¡ rhis circuir tù,..i;;;;ì,

^in r,,n,

il:i:ifl,ifi1u*s

[iàit:,,,,äi,*

o./

Barrt,ta,

lndu cratl ars<: seeks triscovery
of EV,w's ririgatiorr fires, internar
lìlr'rìrorü'da^ bilrins reco*rs,
tirrie records *.,i¡,u. ,rr*",*,'.]"ï,pur",
f ì l *s, acco unr,
po,u.ãbl* anrJ. rec.,i'a bi_,'."Jt
."t eccount stätemenrs
concerrting rhis action to aclequately
to rn ,ouard
of'at'orne¡' fbss. Indu(rati has
"L^l_.*
*,ii"iiå ,-n"* ample need fr¡r rhis
extensive disco'erv' l:'or r:ne
tr,¡rg, *iil"trr. exception or'the
time ancr
billing infbrnlarion, the.requesf
¡s öuerbroaJand ¡Joes not
even directry
relare ro rhe c¡uestion of atto,rr"y
fb-*-s-.ri¿, whire Indu crafì is
enritled t' ËVW,s t,inr* sheets
,i,¿ A-ir¡rrr"i*nt ,""rr.d*, it has
been
provided with rhis inli.rntatjon.
l¿"r__rãi'ËVW bears the bwclen
of
establishing entitrerr:ent,t* arì
anðltr un¡ ,io.r,n*nring rhe appropriate
hours expended. Evw r'ras
suurniiteJr*ö-right invoices a'cr s*rne
rn ptûintill; a rhìr.il puny, ¿rnorher
counseÌ. or olhers,ise.
ltt1Tl
4. ¡\ I I cor.r i.sp.r ¡rlc¡,, c t,et*
ecn anr{
Lrf

i,

¡¡llofiìers"

am.ng

l'ecs ur

ri,. purr..rim t-l'filcs

l"':äÌl;lilllï,1î1""t"

antl atn.trs

."r,;;;i,"*: ï;;' ;i;
reJrrio¡,¡ ,n ,n".;rl,]n"t'

t*latirrg, to iut;' <lisputes concenring
rhe pa"r.menr

pl'¡n,iij i,,l'.örscr *garling
rhe rer,ìrin¿¡lion olrhc

i:îäiiiltiïll.i,îilïìi:;ï-iïïï;,î'i,ïlilijliJ'îålLi:lïr,ninrifï,ur<,
;:Í;.i,;ì.iï:iìJ:,ilÏìï:ïï;,,'nrin:*

rcpr..senrar¡()n ùr.

o*he p,uinr'ïì

aniïÇ äe;-;''åiili,iilli"i:l,i:ff:.,',l,iiil*[,[fi'u..n" "r
representing

¡."; y1;1-s;^rr:.i;ö;ïi/.,l,iililÏ.fi:i'ì;i,?ì;Jj:iser

;*ili;i'ìilii'::;:}:!iå.ililJ¡ll';Jilå:1¿ti:îî-,îïlìïli:*

". il;;,".r";;;icntins

r'ee appricari,rns

ree¿r rþes

prainrìrTin uris

i,,,his n¿,re'o rs'ì,rsenr,ìe

o,'..,t.

craim ,,,,der secrk,n rss,,o
couns(.j
iiúåli:î:i:fiìi,lî',"::i':îJ'ï*;,1ïïif lifl;riiiì'i',Y,i
Incrsdâ.u o'urf rrork'proirL,rr
ir;i;Jiiilll'iïìii;ì:'ili;ii,t':tc lt) lhe: ( I 'crùsj^crurïrirìiìLion upo,,.urrich prriinrirrs ct,u,rscrrcries in rr¡r.ir r¡e
)
'gl(rhal case srr)ìrìr¿¡r),.,nll
uutlìrrr,s"; .:trp.,i,ì,o's*ì.",enr.,:
,",¡'n"!d
¡n.1 rl¡e
ri sirrius'_;;;;;ií;_i;;.]iiri:,jii',i:fi:,ll:i,;ï;J,iyÌï,"ra¡ru,,¡,rf rar" ''" $4'rqL\
the r¡nte ol.iuì.r linrckeeÞr.r.
l.u,
1

irt o,n tþcs

3. Dcpositíons ofplaintifi"s
cc

plainritf.

ore clairne<l ,n U,,r

.,lii.r.,r,,ll¡.

'ounsel' drird-parties who signerl allirjavits

)

paid bv a

i¡r support

cliulI ur

ofthe

f,ce

b-r.

un adverue psflr, fbr

applícalion. ¡r¡¡l¡or thc

L¡h' (.lt'r.rr:n

3

oH

N¿,:'lla¡¡rr¡:L IJ.,Sr.¡t.t.r{
oÍ'Ihc i¡cconlp¡rlling ileruiz¿rrions,
rfì as
ct

iscrc panc i,,"s exisr berw,een
rh1

f:,v\\¡'s .rvrr

rèc' request,

i111-oì

ces,

rncru cr,afï

;;;;itg

ir is F.\,w,s burrien ,"

a'cges,

.i*ìiïy

rcc.r<is, and

,rr*
irct¡nsisre,cies, Furrher¡nore. Incru¡cruri
¡r,, noili.rronrrro,eci amprc
need rbr trre o'iginar time recol.cls
un¿ tin.,. ut

*"tr"'''

becaus* crrrcno ogi ca r compute'
prinro uts *uii.rìy, ,n. con
[e¡nporan eûus
rrt:l leq u i renrenr" Accord i ngl,u,
tf, i, u, p..t-'uf ln,l o
L t.itrr.\ ijiscor.:t.t, requests is clsnied.
r

:l:lii::

lndu("'r'tli v-. ß¿rtk o7 [Jurot{a, r99(i tJ,s.
Disr r.,}i:XIS r4-]42 ar *rg-r{) (s.D,N.\,.
Sep. J0, t99ó) lcitaiion, o*iit.r't.¡

si'ce thc rau' lleitrr.er .equire_s urs l'produoe,
nor entitlcs you r.o denland, anv
r.lore (t('rcunrcnralion o. discovòr1
ti'.rrn ptriiiurti;;r;il;j"'i,- i''.i._,
'['he
ro yorr
rü(rLrcsr$.
supre*c (;*um
has caurirircd,

'tui;ü;;;;ì;,';ì,ïrn..u,,

fbes shorircr
nraj.r litigarion." ßut'klìuirui, t¡,t
,l ði,l'i Itotne, tnr.:. t,. þt..
l''irginiu l-)t'Ìt't rs/'!reartrt-<* rtuitan
i*s.,s:: t;.s, 5frB, 609
PullCor¡t. (.'lu,ss ,lttiott.,l,ut.ne¡,s,,,,,u",r";;or,,r,utít>n,2t)¡3 1300r); see a!rt¡ !tt rtt
WL i7022?7 at*3
rh..D.N.\,, .,\pr.. 8.2013). ,,rto¡rrer),*1, nuÅ',:,13
Wi,:r;4g2îtli.o.X.y. June,35,
1(l l 3) r "¡\e co'cli'ul\'. coLtl'ts have
avoicleii ån inrerprer*rio,. urìàà-shifiing
stairtes
th¿ìr w()uld '*pu*',"'-n

not

rest¡11 ìtr a seconcl

**..ci ririgatio,r oìJJgniricalrt c.rimcnsion.,,,). \#hire
the fbe
applìr:arrt n'rLrsl subrlìil oppropriire
clc,curnJìtarion "tri¿rl .",'lrr,
no{. and inrjeed
illould rl.t. hecorne gi"eerì-eyrìshad*
"J-rr li
3çç6¡¡¡1¡¡1'1s.,. Si.<r¡lc¿ t t,. l!/!i,t,20
WL
7ó(':01r:r ar *r (h.'D'N.\'. r)ec.
tv,totz1,-

ia,,p,ra,ioli'wi'îiis;¡

\4¡r'.7,:013).

1[.r).N.y.

'l'.

thar end. rhere is absoruter¡, ,'no
aurrrorìry hording that counser
musr
il
o¡rcrr irs books Ir olriccrors tirr.-iLrspecrion
t'i, uirt,,* or.fìri'g a t.ee motìo¡l.,,cirs,se^cc
t" ll'illiunt't' i03 rj App'r 55. str
ti,i
r: ,se:at.tr.ro )'.uttgv. (;redit

ul rotkprtrt' Itrc,
defi:rdanr

rL)9

..rje*s f.

ci*:dn
oi t.r,r"

r u1L i78lg,ar *r

þ{ar.

r:, t'ólt¡

lJtu.e,Lrt

1,,1.tre

rhe anrounrs ,r'f.ees *ug¡r on¿
r-,T",*0r;rr; an evidenriary
hearing be held to cl*er.nrjnc tn*
propri*r¡l-ti",",rt,, , . .fhis Court cJeems
an
er.íclentiary hearing on the i*ru,
nf fL"*, ,,i,n"r.rrury ,,); Binghant t,,,
Zolt,ó6 l.."id
5-i3, 5ó5 {2d Cjr. t995):
Z<¡lt's denla,<is do not nresh wifh
the polici.. tl:at ,IaJ r.equesr fbr.
iìrtorne)''s lèr's shouJcrn.r resur{
in a stconii ,nr.¡o,. ritìg;ri;;
I P J I a ínri t't' s ubrn i ttetl a cletai lccl nr.n,.ui,ing.,f
uu.i.
containing rimc recorr'rs rìrr the
att'rne;..s, surnmer

;,ü;;;_

crerk.

ñd

paralegal

[.¡w Or.n¡c;¡ or
N¿,rr¡¿,rv¡:¿L B. Surr.¡r
who worked on this case, . . . .lhis
infc¡rmation wsrs supponecl by an
ar*Ìdavir provìded b,v praintitrs
counr*t, Afler reviervins those
rccords, rrre disrrict couil fbLrnd
i rer i. fu uv ìaìrr
¡.,¿ï,irr",rrc detai red
docr¡rnentario'ançr abre ro determi;e
an appropriate arvar<J witltt¡ut
aì * !'r \
"
un.v u cr cr i r i c¡ rut r cr i s c' a t' e
ry or e'i cr enl ia'y r,,.;.i ;g; :'r
/r/, (emphasìs added).

More.l'cr, where - as here plairtifrs
cou'sel ,,has subrnitted typewrirten
trrrrscri¡)ticins of'their original
.".,rr,r* ,,::i,i ,1or, ís recluiretr,,, Leníhart
t,, citl,o_f.
N'ev¡' Yr¡rk,640 lì' supp. 822,
treq ti.D.Ñ,v. ¡?sô). Indeecl,
thc seconcl circuir has
re.jected an,r' basis upon rvhich
cìef'en.lanls coutd prausibry crainr
the rersvancv or
such documenrs as they are
nor r*r¡ui,.*ä in c*ru1Àction *rtt.,
"'
u

d.;;;¡;rt"r:

l'*cal uni<¡'No. 3 claims trmt a1[oruey's
tbes sho'l<J not have been
& *rr."î"g,Jiälrut suu*it
¿lcruåìl colltelllp.rafleor¡s
time records, bur instead ,uiri,i,i.¿
a typed
listing
arva¡'tred hcrein lrccause, ín¡er
aria, Davis

ot'their hours lrom ,¡*i, .lu,,r,
m e n t is
rt ¡t e r s uas ì v,, À ;;,;
;;.ï;ï',
lìisenberg shows that they *r.r.
.o,rt.,r]poïaneous entries as the work
-was complerecr, and that their biì.¡ing
wai based on these
c.nrenìp.râneous records, we herievc
this fbris ,*id.i""rry withirr the
meaning or"'conlentpora.ne0us," gnd
that such a prar:tice is not
contrary to the clictates of Cla¡.e-l.i
t

;;

;il l,i:i,:',iÍJ rlli#f

t

t

Crtr

v" Loct¿l L"l¡tion No, 3 o_{lnt,l
ßhd. o/.tîtec,, Worker,t,34 f..3d I l4g,
ll6CI-61
(2d Cir. t994) (emphasis supptiecl).

("ourls

re.iccrecr .,fi,srring

expecritions,.by counser ìn rhe context
"onriur.llll-)
olatttrnreys' ft'es nlotjons, Sec- e.g.,
I.o,,riììr, ,ntpru.; T,i-Srur pictures,
Inc. v.
Lnger,43 rr. supp, 2d?96,3û2-$í
ii,il.N.î tre¡ 1,"r.tre u",uuioriginar rime
shec'ts are nöt ne(:es.\(1r.,i subnritting
r, ,iïìi""i.t ând attaching a c'mputer printour
of thc pcrtirLenr conlerrporarìeous
rirne records i* ,.."prãti.,,':?¡i' iìir,¡d
t,, suiliv¿ut,
7771:' supp. ? 12,223 (Ë.D,N.y.
içõiirtrl, rvourd make no $ense ro penarize a
ro pres.nr rtr. ront àporrrìeo*s
recorcrs in a fbrm convenienr

lüiii.';J;i:mpting

ln short, under the raw of'trris c'ircuil,
you have no rttgurå¿r,s¡s r-or requesting
the addirionarreconrs rhat you
,ror se"k. i r"¡, i, .rro tnre fbr rhe otrrer
a ciemand
il

4

l,.rrw

5

ory¡cB o¡'

N¡,rx.¡rxrrcr. Il. Sr'¡rr-rr
made i' yaur retter i.s,, rerainer
agreements, emails antr potentiaily
taking
depositions' A's sucrr, none of fhe tðqr"rir

i"it

be enterrained.

we have arready becn required ro expe.nd
artorney time in researching
prepari'g riris resp'nse ünd \\,'r

ù,ür;;;i"il;,;;;--drn

ancr

accorcti,rgiv
(''ourr ri',r thar acrditiorLar
ii.om rhe
rìnre- sr'rr,,r,i ,uì,i^..onrinue to pur$ue
this rnaner, we wirl
also seek ro recor/er

f¡;;;;.,;ri;

the adcrìrionar ono""yt
iì,
requesfs or in response To any
motjon ro comper a response.

.riö"¿r_g

Sincer:ely,

NA'|}IANIËI,

T],

SMI]'H

1û0 Wall Srreet, 23rcl Floor

New York, New york 10005
2t?-227-1A62
natbsnr irh(llgmaì l.com

.IO¡ì I,. NOIì.INS}JËI{Û
2?5 Broadway. Suire 3700
|,lew \1ork, Nerr,yörk Ì00û7
(?12) 791-s396
Norinsbergfglaol,com

JÛSHLJA P. FITCII

CHRitLD M, COHHN
C]OITEN & FITC}I Î,LP
233 Ïlroadrvay, Suite tg00

N,y. l0?79
(21?) i74-91 l5
gc oh en (|c o hen ii rc h. coln
Nerw York.

.i

fitchif.icohu

n

fircl:. com

JOHN I..ËNOIR
100 Wall Srreet, 23rd Floor
New York, New york 10005
? ¡ ?-335-0?50
j oh n. Ien o

5

i

r(ri)gmai

L

co nr

ro your