Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 619

LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Gerald M. Cohen dated April 27, 2016 re: Response to Defendants letter requesting set page limits and limiting Plaintiff to one Reply Memorandum of Law for all counsel. Document filed by Adrian Schoolcraft.(Cohen, Gerald)

Download PDF
COHEN & FITCH LLP 233 BROADWAY, SUITE 1800 NEW YORK, NY 10279 TEL: 212.374.9115 FAX: 212.406.2313 April 27, 2016 BY EMAIL & 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. The City of New York, 10-cv-6005 (RWS) (DCF) Dear Judge Sweet: I am one of the counsel that represent plaintiff in the above-referenced case and I am writing in response to defendants letter requesting that this court set a page for plaintiff's forthcoming Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and to limit plaintiff's submission to one Memorandum of Law for all three groups of attorneys who represented plaintiff throughout this case. We respectfully disagree with defendants on both points. With respect to the page limit, defendants claim that it is "typical" for a reply memorandum to be half the length of the opposition memorandum. However, what is also "typical" is for opposition memorandum to be the same size as the moving briefs. Here, however, defendants have filed a seventy three (73) page memorandum along with another one hundred nineteen (119) pages of argument, disguised as an "expert report," which really amounts to nearly two (200) pages of briefing. This is more than six (6) times the pages in plaintiff's moving papers. In short, nothing has been "typical" about this second round of litigation the City has imposed on plaintiff and this Court. Nonetheless, counsels do not intend to file even close to the (200) two hundred pages of argument that defendants have submitted and will use our best judgment to limit our response to the multitude of attacks defendants aimed at our fee application. Further the need for flexibility on the page limit is due to the fact that three (3) separate teams are filing responses to an enormous opposition that attacked each group in separate and distinct ways. Each team would like an opportunity to specifically address the issues raised against them. Further, defendants attacks on billing practices, individual time entries, and the like can only be addressed by counsel familiar with those practices. Although there is some overlap, much of the arguments for each team will be different. As such, it is necessary for each team to respond to the specific attacks lobbed against them in their own separate filing. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that Your Honor grant plaintiff’s counsel permission to file an oversize memoranda of law using their best judgment as to the amount of pages necessary to succinctly yet adequately respond to defendants' opposition and permit each team to file separate memoranda to address the specific attacks lodged against them. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, _________/s________________ JOSHUA P. FITCH GERALD M. COHEN COHEN & FITCH LLP 233 Broadway, Suite 1800 New York, N.Y. 10279 (212) 374-9115 NATHANIEL B. SMITH 100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor New York, New York 10005 212-227-7062 JON L. NORINSBERG 225 Broadway, Suite 2700 New York, New York 10007 (212) 791-5396 JOHN LENOIR 100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor New York, New York 10005 212-335-0250 CC VIA ECF: Alan Scheiner Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York, New York 10007

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?