Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 600

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 Affidavit Declaration of Alan H Scheiner Previously Filed April 8, 2016, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Ex A-1, # 4 Exhibit Ex A-2, # 5 Exhibit Ex B, # 6 Exhibit Ex C, # 7 Exhibit Ec D, # 8 Exhibit Ex E, # 9 Exhibit Ex F, # 10 Exhibit Ex G, # 11 Supplement Ex H, # 12 Exhibit Ex I, # 13 Exhibit Ex J, # 14 Exhibit Ex K, # 15 Exhibit Ex L, # 16 Exhibit Ex M, # 17 Exhibit Ex N, # 18 Exhibit Ex O, # 19 Exhibit Ex P, # 20 Exhibit Ex Q, # 21 Exhibit Ex R, # 22 Exhibit Ex S, # 23 Exhibit Ex T, # 24 Exhibit Ex U, # 25 Exhibit Ex V, # 26 Exhibit Ex X, # 27 Exhibit Ex Y, # 28 Exhibit Ex Z, # 29 Exhibit Ex AA, # 30 Exhibit Ex BB, # 31 Exhibit Ex CC, # 32 Exhibit Ex DD)(Scheiner, Alan)

EXHIBIT J

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 [phone]
FAX [phone]
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 [phone]

5938 FIELDSTON ROAD

FAx [phone]
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
[phone]
Suzanna Publicker, Esq.
Corporation Counsel
[phone]

Cohen & Fitch
[phone]
Gregory John Radomisti, Esq.
Martin Clearwater & Bell, LLP
[phone]
Brian Lee, Esq.
Ivone, Devine & Jensen, LLP
[phone]
Bruce M. Brady, Esq.
Callan, Koster, Brady & Brennan, LLP
[phone]
Walter A. Kretz, Jr., Esq.
Scoppetta Seiff Kretz & Abercrombie

[phone]
FROM:

Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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