Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 581

LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Alan H. Scheiner dated February 5, 2016 re: Supplemental Reply in Support of Motion for Discovery. Document filed by The City Of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Transcript of Hearing)(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

February 5, 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 above-captioned matter.
The City writes submits this supplemental reply letter because, since filing its reply on
February 2, 2016, the City’s counsel learned of two prior decisions of this Court directly relevant
to the pending application. First, on March 19, 2014 and March 26, 2014, this Court granted a
motion to compel discovery relating to a fee application under the IDEA, requiring the
production of plaintiff’s counsel’s invoices for payment of fees that had been reimbursed by a
third-party. See A.R. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., No. 12 Civ. 7144, Docket No. 46, Tr. at 5,
10 (Exhibit A) (S.D.N.Y. March 26, 2014)(Sweet, J.); see also A.R. v. New York City Dep't of
Educ., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153103, *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2014) (“On March 19, 2014 and
March 26, 2014, the Court granted the DOE's motion to compel and directed Plaintiff's counsel
to produce records related to their respective agreements and payment relationships with JRC.”).
In addition to demonstrating that discovery is not barred with respect to fee applications,
this Court’s decision in A.R. calls for discovery relating to third-party claims and payments of
fees and expense, which plaintiff here refused to provide (although one counsel disclosed a
declaration a $5,000 payment received for expenses. See Declaration of Jon Norinsberg, Ex. H,
Docket No. 560-1, at 20, n. 7). Accordingly, the City makes a supplemental request for an order
requiring the same disclosure by all counsel here.

Sweet, J.
February 5, 2016
Page 2

Second, in Williamsburg Fair Hous. Comm. v. N.Y. City Hous. Auth., 2005 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 5200, *28 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2005) (Sweet, J.), this Court held that although “[a]ttorney
affidavits which set forth all charges with the required specificity but which are reconstructions
of the contemporaneous records satisfy the rationale underlying Carey[,] . . . . such typed
reconstructions fail to satisfy Carey if they contain more detail than the original records.” Id.
(citations omitted). The City seeks plaintiff’s original time records precisely to determine
whether plaintiff’s “typed reconstructions” in fact “contain more detail than the original
records.” Id.
The City regrets the necessity for this supplemental Reply and apologizes for any
inconvenience, but respectfully requests the Court’s consideration of these matters due to their
direct relevance to the issues at hand.
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