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)

COHEN & FITCH LLP
233 BROADWAY, SUITE 1800
NEW YORK, NY 10279
TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

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
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
NATHANIEL B. SMITH
100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor
New York, New York 10005
212-227-7062
[e-mail]
JON L. NORINSBERG
225 Broadway, Suite 2700
New York, New York 10007
[phone]
[e-mail]
JOHN LENOIR
100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor
New York, New York 10005
212-335-0250
[e-mail]
CC VIA ECF:
Alan Scheiner
Assistant Corporation Counsel
New York City Law Department
100 Church Street
New York, New York 10007