Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 635

LETTER addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Alan H. Scheiner dated May 11, 2016 re: Supplemental Submission in Response to Plaintiff's Filing of May 10, 2016 and Request to Reconsider Denia of Prior Request for Adjournment in Light of Plaintiff's Additional Submission. Document filed by The City Of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhbiti A Analysis By The California State Bar Committee on Mandatory Fee Arbitration March 25, 2016)(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 11, 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.
Yesterday the City moved to strike plaintiff’s improperly filed letter of May 10, 2016.
The Court has not ruled on the application, nor has it been opposed.
In the event that the Court does not strike the plaintiff’s letter, I write in response to
plaintiff’s objection under Fed. R. Evid. 1006, voiced for the first time in the letter, that plaintiff
had not received Judith Bronsther’s coding data. Plaintiff never before requested such
information, despite having the Audit Report since April 8, and therefore cannot at this late date
object on that basis. Moreover, the calculations in the Audit Report are based on and can be
verified with reference to the plaintiff’s own timesheets submitted to the Court and the
reorganization of those time entries contained in Exhibit A to the City’s opposition to the fee
motion (previously submitted in both electronic and hard copy formats).
Nevertheless, for the avoidance of all doubt, today the City produced to plaintiff by email
a printout from the witness’ computer system of the codes she entered into that system with
respect to plaintiff’s counsel’s time entries in the process of preparing the calculations reflected
in her report. Should the Court deem it relevant, the City is prepared to submit those printouts to
the Court. The City reserves all objections, including objections with respect to privilege, as to

Sweet, J.
May 11, 2016
Page 2
any other material prepared by the witness in anticipation of litigation or in preparation of the
Audit Report.
In addition, in light of plaintiff’s contention regarding the Arbitration Advisory 200301of the California State Bar’s Committee on Mandatory Fee Arbitration, the City submits the
recent update to that Advisory, as of March 25, 2016, Analysis of Potential Bill Padding and
Other Billing Issues, as Exhibit A to this letter. The Arbitration Advisory 2003-01 has been
frequently relied on by federal courts on attorneys’ fees issues, especially with respect to block
billing. See, e.g., Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir. Cal. 2007); Ibrahim
v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145633, *45-46 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2014);
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160668, *29-31 & n. 49 (N.D. Cal.
Nov. 7, 2012); Hamed v. Macy's West Stores, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125838, *17-18 (N.D.
Cal. Oct. 31, 2011); Alvarado v. FedEx Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112997, *57 (N.D. Cal.
Sept. 30, 2011); Cadkin v. Bluestone, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83582, *7-8 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9,
2007); see also Edwards v. Ford Motor Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59651, *29 (S.D. Cal. Jan.
22, 2016) (regarding billing increments).
Should the Court deny the City’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s letter submission of May
10, 2016, in light of the plaintiff’s additional filing the City further respectfully moves for
reconsideration of the Court’s denial of the City’s prior request (Docket No. 629) to adjourn the
date of the oral argument to a date after May 13, 2016, in light of the plaintiff’s oversize and
multiple submissions. The City respectfully submits that an adjournment of the oral argument
until at least May 18, 2016, is called for to cure the now heightened prejudice to the City from
the plaintiff’s oversized and multiple submissions.
We thank the Court for its consideration of this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Alan H. Scheiner
Senior Counsel
Special Federal Litigation Division
cc (w/encl):
All counsel by ECF