Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al
Filing
598
DECLARATION of Alan H. Scheiner in Opposition re: 566 FINAL MOTION for Attorney Fees for Levine & Gilbert and Peter J. Gleason, Esq.., 559 MOTION for Attorney Fees , Costs and Disbursements.. Document filed by The City Of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit, # 27 Exhibit, # 28 Exhibit, # 29 Exhibit)(Scheiner, Alan)
Oct 18 2012 01:04cm
Received:
OcT-18-2012
12124066890
LAW OFFICES
13:21
P.02/12
JON L. NORINSBERG
ATTORNEY AT LAW
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
225 BROADWAY
SUITE
2700
NEW YORK, NEw YORK 10007
www.norinsberglaw.com
TEL (212) 791-5396
FAX (212) 406-6890
E-mAn.: norinsberg®aol.com
BRONX OFFICE
5938 FMLOSTON ROAD
BRONX, NEW YORK 10471
JON L. NOKINSDERG
ALEX UMANSKY
October 18, 2012
Honorable Robert W. Sweet
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street, Room 1920
New York, New York 10007
Re:
Schoolcraft v. City of New York. et al
10 CV 6005 (RWS)
Your Honor
I represent plaintiff Adrian Schoolcraft in the above referenced civil rights action brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 write now to respectfully request that plaintiff Adrian Schoolcraft
be granted access to materials which have been designated by the City of New York as "Attorneys
Eyes Only". Defense counsel, Suzanna Publicker, Esq., opposes this request. Ms. Publicker,
however, has failed to state any basis for her opposition to this request. For the reasons set forth
below, plaintiff should be allowed to have access to all documents provided by the City of New
York.
Procedural History
By way of background, in March 2012, an article appeared in the Village Voice which
disclosed the contents of the QAD investigation into Mr. Schoolcraft's allegations. On March 28,
2012, the parties appeared before Your Honor to address this issue. At that time, the Court ruled that
the City of New York could, as part of discovery, inquire into the source of this leak before turning
over any further confidential materials.
The Attorneys Eyes Only Stipulation was originally conceived as a temporary measure to
allow the City of New York to continue to exchange discovery materials while the City investigated
the source of the leak of the QAD. In fact, the record will reflect that it was plaintiff's counsel - and
not the City of New York -- who originally proposed the idea of an Attorneys Eyes Only Stipulation,
so as to ensure that discovery could proceed forward while the City investigated the source of the
leak.
Received:
OCT-18-2012
13: 21
LAW OFF ICES
Oct 18 2012 01:05Dm
12124066890
P.03/12
On August 9, 2012, plaintiff signed an affidavit that specifically denied any involvement or
knowledge into the leak of the QAD investigation materials. (Ex. A). This affidavit was drafted by
the City of New York, and was provided to the City as a temporary measure until they could take
plaintiffs deposition. On October 11, 2012, plaintiff appeared for his deposition. At that time,
plaintiff once again specifically and emphatically denied any involvement in the QAD leak.
Following plaintiff's deposition, on October 12, 2012. plaintiffs counsel wrote to defendants
to request that plaintiff and plaintiff alone - be allowed access to the materials which had been
designated as "Attorneys Eyes Only" (Ex. B). On October 16, 2012, the City ofNew York responded
with a one line e -email, refusing to consent to plaintiff's request, but failing to offer any explanation
for such a refusal. (Ex. C).
There Is No Longer Any Valid Basis For Denying Plaintiff Access To The Discovery Materials.
The original rationale for denying plaintiff access to discovery materials no longer exists.
Simply put, there is no evidence whatsoever that plaintiff Adrian Schoolcraft had anything to do with
the QAD leak. Mr. Schoolcraft has now provided sworn testimony - twice - emphatically denying
that he had anything to do with the leak of the QAD investigation findings. The City has had ample
time to conduct its investigation, and has failed to discovery any evidence at all linking plaintiff to
this leak. Given the complete lack of any evidence connecting plaintiff to this leak, the City's
continued insistence that plaintiff should be denied access to discovery materials is wholly
unwarranted and fundamentally unfair to plaintiff.
Plaintiff Needs To Have Access To The Discovery Materials In Order To Meaningfully
Participate In His Case.
It is fundamentally unfair to deny plaintiff access to the materials which have been exchanged
during discovery. These materials -which consist largely of the interviews conducted during the IAB
investigation - directly involve plaintiffs allegations in this lawsuit. There are tape recorded
interviews of multiple defendants in this case relating to the October 31, 2009 invasion into
plaintiffs home, as well as the events which occurred earlier in that day. To deny plaintiff access to
these materials would be to effectively prevent him from participating in his own case. It would be
impossible for plaintiff to meaningfully assist counsel in preparing for depositions and formulating
further document requests without having any access to these discovery materials. Therefore, as a
matter of fairness. plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant him access to the materials
which have been exchanged during discovery.
Defendants Would Suffer No Prejudice If Plaintiff Were Allowed Access to the Designated
Materials.
Defendants have not argued, nor could they, that they would suffer any prejudice if plaintiff
were allowed to see the materials which have been designated confidential. The only possible
justification for withholding such materials -concerns about another possible leak -are non-existent
at this point. Plaintiff has given sworn testimony on this issue on two occasions, and there is no
evidence whatsoever linking plaintiff to the earlier leak of the QAD investigation findings. Under
Oct 18 2012 01:05pm
Received:
13:22
OCT-18-2012
12124066690
LFIld OFFICES
P.04/12
such circumstances, there is simply no longer any compelling reason for denying plaintiff access to
materials which directly involve his allegations in this lawsuit.
For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff Adrian Schoolcraft respectfully requests that the
Court allow him to have access to materials designated by the City of New York as "Attorneys Eyes
Only."
I thank the Court for consideration of this request.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon L. Norinsberg
.11/slinb
Enclosures
cc:
Scoppetta Seiff Kretz & Abercrombie
444 Madison Avenue
30th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10022-1010
Attn: Walter A Kretz, Jr., Esq.
Corporation Counsel
100 Church Street
Room 3-200
New York, New York 10007
Attn: Suzanna H. Publicker, Esq.
Martin, Clearwater & Bell, LLP
220 East 42nd Street
New York, New York 10017
Gregory J. Radomisli, Esq.
Callan Koster Brady & Brennan, LLP
One Whitehall Street
10'h Floor
New York, New York 10004
Attn: Bruce Brady, Esq.
Received:
OCT-18-2012
13:22
LAW OFFICES
lvone, Devine & Jensen, LLP
2001 Marcus Avenue
Suite N100
Lake Success, New York 11042
Attn: Brian Lee
Cohen & Fitch, LLP.
The Woolworth Building
233 Broadway
Suite 1800
New York, New York 10279
Oct 18 2012 01:05Pm
12124066890
P.05/11
Received.
OCT-18-2012
13 : 22
LAW OFFICES
Oct 18 2012 01:05Dm
12124066890
P . 06/12
Exhibit A
Oct 19 2012 01:06Dm
Received:
OCT-18-2012
13: 22
12124066890
LAW OFFICES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----
P.07/1.V
x
AFFIDAVIT OF
ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT
ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT,
Plaintiff,
-against-
10 CV 6005 (RWS)
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Defendants.
a
STATE OF NEW YORK
: SS.:
COUNTY OF ALBANY
Adrian Schoolcraft, being duly sworn, hereby states, under penalty of perjury and
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ¢ 1746, that the following is true and correct:
I
.
I am the plaintiff in this matter.
I make this declaration based upon my personal
knowledge.
2. By letter dated March 12, 2012, counsel for defendant City of New York, requested that
the parties provide affidavits attesting to the fact that they have not violated the
Stipulation and Protective Order in this matter, dated September 28. 2011, by producing a
confidential New York City Police Department ("NYPD") Quality Assurance Division
Report ("QAD Report") to any media outlet, including the Village Voice.
3. I am aware that the parties entered into a Confidentiality order in or about September
2011, which was ordered by the Court on March 12, 2012, relating to various NYPD
documents, including, but not limited to, the QAD report.
Received:
4.
Oct 18 2012 01: 05Dm
12124066890
LAW OFFICES
13:22
()cr.-1e-2012
P . 08/12
am aware of the general terms and conditions of the Confidentiality order and
l
understand its terms, Most importantly,
l
.understand that the documents which are
subject to the order cannot be disclosed to anyone. except in the very limited
circumstances set forth in paragraph 4.
5.
I did not provide. show, or otherwise disseminate the QAD Report, hearing Bates Nos.
D000508-000602, to the Village Voice newspaper or reporter Graham R.ayman, and do
not know or have any knowledge whatsoever about who did or may have done so,
6,
I
did not provide. show, or otherwise disseminate the QAD Report, bearing Bates Nos.
D000508-000602. to any media outlet. including but not limited lo newspapers,
magazines. Wogs, or television networks and
I
do not know or have any knowledge
whatsoever about who did or may have done so.
7.
1 did not provide, show, or otherwise disseminate the QAD Report, hearing Bates Nos.
D000508-000602, to my father. Larry Sehoolcraft. ur arty family members and 1 do not
know or have any knowledge whatsoever about whether anyone may have done so
S.
I do not know or have any knowledge whatsoever about who provided either Graham
Rayman or the Village Voice with a copy attic QAD Report.
it,
I did not violate the March 12. 2012 Confidentiality order in any respect.
Dated'
Adrian S
Sworn to before me this
2012
of
A
_
day
,
NOTARY PUBLIC'
SlArf
Aft, }Mu
-... 4,
.,
sew
/ON
"Veilmitni
Cameo
Ailtuatimanison.
wf*,__1131111Cairfi
Meta Jute 14, -wit
Received:
OCT-18-2012
13:22
LAW OFFICES
Oct 18 2012 01:05om
12124066890
P . 09/121
Exhibit B
Received:
pCT-18-2012
Oct 18 2012 01:05Pm
LAW OFF ICES
13:22
12124066890
P.10/12
JON L. NORINSBERG
ATTORNEY AT LAW
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
225 BROADWAY
SUITE 2700
NEW YORK, New YORK 10007
www,norinsberglaw.com
BRONX OFFICE
TEL (212) 791-5396
5938 FIELDSTON ROAD
FAx (212) 4066890
E-MAIL norinsberg®Rol.com
BRONX, NEW You 10471
ION L NORINSEIERG
ALEX UMANSKY
October 12, 2012
Corporation Counsel
100 Church Street
Room 3-200
New York, New York 10007
Attn: Suzanne H. Publicker, Esq.
Re:
&heelers)? v. City of New York, et al
10 CV 6005 (RWS)
Dear Ms. Publicker:
Since plaintiff has now given both an affidavit and sworn deposition testimony denying his
involvement with the QAD leak - and since there is no evidence whatsoever that plaintiff had
anything to do with the QAD leak -we believe that there is no longer any basis for denying plaintiff
access to confidential documents exchanged during discovery. Therefore, we intend to write to Judge
Sweet to request permission for Adrian Schoolcraft, and Adrian Schoolcraft alone (i.e., not Larry
Schoolcraft or any other person) to be exempt from the Attorneys Eyes Only restriction on
documents exchanged by the City defendants. Please advise as to whether or not you consent to this
request
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Very truly yours,
cc:
Cohen Fitch, LLP.
The Woolworth Building
233 Broadway
Suite 1800
New York, New York 10279
Received:
OCT-18-2012
13:22
LAW OFFICES
Oct 18 2012 01:06Pm
12124066890
P.11/11
Exhibit C
Oct 18 2012 01:O6pm
Received:
0&-18-2012
13:22
LAW
OFFICES
12124066890
P.12/12
Nicole Bursztyn
From:
Publicker, Suzanna Ispublick©law.nyc.govl
Sent:
October 18, 2012 8:58 AM
To:
Nicole Bursztyn
Subject: RE: Schoolcraft v. City of New York
Defendants do not consent.
From: Nicole Bursztyn [mailto:Nicole(norinsberglaw,com)
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 4:04 PM
To: Publicker, Suzanna
Cc: Jon Norinsberg External; Gerald Cohen; Joshua Fitch
Subject: Schoolcraft v. City of New York
Dear Ms. Publicker,
Please see attached correspondence from Mr. Norinsberg.
Thank you
Nicole Bursztyn
Law Offices of Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
212-791-5396
10/18/2012
Intel
P 17
Received:
OCT-18-2012
13: 21
Oct 18 2012 01:04pm
LAW OFFICES
LAW OFFICES OF
JON L. NORINSBERG
225 BROADWAY, SUITE 2700
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10007
FAX TRANSMISSION
DATE:
October 18, 2012
TO:
Honorable Robert W. Sweet
(212) 805-7925
Suzanna Publicker, Esq.
Corporation Counsel
(212) 788-9776
Cohen & Fitch
(212) 406-2313
Gregory John Radomisti, Esq.
Martin Clearwater & Bell, LLP
(212) 949-7054
Brian Lee, Esq.
Ivone, Devine & Jensen, LLP
(516) 352-4952
Bruce M. Brady, Esq.
Callan, Koster, Brady & Brennan, LLP
(212) 248-6815
Walter A. Kretz, Jr., Esq.
Scoppetta Seiff Kretz & Abercrombie
(212) 371-6883
FROM:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Phone: (212) 791-5396
Fax: (212) 406-6890
PAGES:
(12) Including Cover Memorandum
RE:
Adrian Schookraft v. City of New York, et al.
10 CV 6005 (R WS)
MESSAGE: Please see attached.
12124066890
P.01/12
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?