Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 634

LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Alan H. Scheiner dated May 10, 2016 re: Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Multiple and Oversize "Reply" of May 10, 2016. Document filed by The City Of New York.(Scheiner, Alan)

ZACHARY W. CARTER
Corporation Counsel

THE CITY OF NEW YORK

ALAN H. SCHEINER
Senior Counsel
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

LAW DEPARTMENT
100 CHURCH STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007

May 10, 2016
BY ECF & EMAIL
([e-mail])
Honorable Robert W. Sweet
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007

Re: Schoolcraft v. City of New York, 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 motion respondent City of New York (the “City”), in
connection with the above-captioned matter.
I write to respectfully move to strike plaintiff’s second purported “Reply” submission
filed today by Nat Smith, relating to on plaintiff’s motion to strike the Declaration and Audit
Report of Judith Bronsther. See Docket No. 631. Plaintiff already filed a letter “on behalf of
plaintiff’s counsel” on May 6, 2016, in reply to defendant’s opposition to plaintiff’s Motion to
Strike. Docket No. 630. This was in addition to further briefing on the expert issue in plaintiff’s
Reply on the fee application. See Docket No. 629 at 2.
Plaintiff made no request to file multiple Reply submissions on the motion to strike to the
Court or to the City, and there is no justification for multiple submissions on the expert motion.
Plaintiff made its motion to strike with a single letter, and there is nothing in Smith’s purported
Reply that is specific to the Smith team’s billings. Rather, Smith presents general legal
arguments, including new arguments and case law which could have been submitted in plaintiff’s
original moving papers, or at the latest in its already filed Reply.
As this court has already ruled, plaintiff’s counsel are not parties to this proceeding and
are not entitled to make submissions on their own behalf. The most recent multiple filing was
done without prior request and without any justification.

Sweet, J.
May 10, 2016
Page 2
In addition to constituting a multiple filing on behalf of a single party, Smith’s letter also
flouts page limitations, without prior permission. On May 6, 2016, plaintiff filed a three page
single-spaced reply letter-brief, equivalent to six pages of a correctly formatted memorandum.
Docket No. 630. Now plaintiff files an eight-page single spaced letter, equivalent to a 16 page
memorandum. Thus, plaintiff has filed in total a 24 page “Reply” memorandum in response to
an opposition brief that was only 18 pages. See Docket No. 627. This court’s page limit for
Reply memorandum is 10 pages. See Local Rule 7.1(c) and Court’s Individual Practices.
The plaintiffs’ counsel’s piling-on by multiple, oversize filings flouts procedural rules
and causes prejudice to the City’s fair opportunity to evaluate and respond to the submissions in
an orderly fashion. The City therefore respectfully requests that the Court strike the plaintiff’s
newest submission as procedurally improper and not consider it.
We thank the Court for its consideration of this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Alan H. Scheiner
Senior Counsel
Special Federal Litigation Division
cc:

All counsel by ECF