Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 618

LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Cheryl L. Shammas dated April 27, 2016 re: Response to Plaintiffs letter dated April 11, 2016 (filed via ECF on April 27, 2016) concerning the scope and size of his Reply Memorandum. Document filed by The City Of New York.(Shammas, Cheryl)

ZACHARY W. CARTER
Corporation Counsel

THE CITY OF NEW YORK

CHERYL L. SHAMMAS
Senior Counsel
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

LAW DEPARTMENT
100 CHURCH STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007

April 27, 2016
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. 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 City of New York (the “City”) in connection with the abovecaptioned matter. The City writes in response to Plaintiff’s letter dated April 11, 2016 (filed via
ECF on April 27, 2016) concerning the scope and size of the Reply Memorandum of Law in
Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. The City respectfully requests an order (i) limiting
Plaintiff’s submissions to one Memorandum of Law; and (ii) setting a page limit to Plaintiff’s reply
submission.
Plaintiff's request refers to plaintiff making multiple Reply submissions. The City
respectfully requests that plaintiff should be allowed only one submission. As the Court has
already ruled, the attorney-fee claim belongs to the plaintiff and counsel are not parties to this
proceeding, so there is no warrant for multiple submissions.
The City also respectfully requests that the Court set some limit on the size of the Reply.
A Reply memorandum half of the length of the opposition memorandum would be typical, but
we leave the precise number to the Court's discretion.
In addition, the City should be permitted a reasonable time to review the Plaintiff's
submission and prepare an oral response or request a written sur-reply before the oral argument
date set by the Court. Accordingly, depending on the size of the submission, the City may be
required to ask for an adjournment of the oral argument date in order to avoid prejudice from the
oversize submission.

Hon. Robert W. Sweet, U.S.D.J.
April 27, 2016
Page 2

We thank the Court for its consideration of the matter.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Cheryl Shammas
Cheryl Shammas
Senior Counsel
Special Federal Litigation Division
cc:

All counsel by ECF