Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 89

Letter (Treated as a Motion returnable 5/23) addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from Suzanna Publicker dated 5/11/12 re: Counsel writes on behalf of non-party councilman Peter Vallone, Jr. to request that the Court quash the subpoena served upon him by plaintiff seeking among other things (1) records of complaints regarding the alleged downgrading of crime reports, and (2) documents reflecting the alleged failure of the NYPD to report crime reports. ***Accepted as a docket and file by Chambers. (mro) (mro).

~002/01l

THE CITY OF NEW YORK

LAW DE PARTMENT~

MICH,\EL J\, CARUOZ.O
COIporaliul1 Cuurnw/

100 CJ-JURCIi STRl:!ET

NEW YORK,

NY

10007

",..", ~

~:z

'3

-;:--

/'

~

SUZANNA "lIHUCKER

phone: (212)7~IH I{l]
tilx; ('212) 7l!8-9776

~~ ~rn~il: [e-mail]_!.\llv

May 11,2012

BY FAX [phone]
IIonorabl~

Robert W. Sweet
United States District Judge
Southern Dit'trict of New York
500 Pearl Street
NtlW York, New York 10007
Re: Schookntll v. Tbc City ()I'New "'(ork, et aL

1O-CV -6005 (R WS)

Your Honor:
1 am the Assistant Corpo1"atton Counsel in the offiee of Michael A. Cardon),
Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, assigned to the defense of lhe above-referenced
matter. Thi!) onicc writes on behtilr of non-party Councilman Peter Vallone, Jr. For the re(.1.'1Ol1S
stated herein, Councihnun Vallone respectfully requests that the Court quash the subpocna
served upon him by plaintiff seeking, among othcr things: (1) records of complaints regarding
lhe alleged downgrading of crime reporl~, and (2) documents rel1ecting the alleged Hlilure of the
NYPD to "report crime reports" and the alleged arrelitlsummons quota policy; since the sought­
after information is not relev4\nt or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissib1e
evidence in this muHer and therefore exceeds thc scope of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). See Subpoena
dated Apri 1 17 , 2012. annexed hercto as Exhibit "A". Furthermore, the request l(Jr
correspondcnce between Cou11cilman Val10ne and Commissioner Raymond Kelly relating to
"the alJegations ()r Adrian Schoolcraft" arc too vague and/or ambiguous. and llcc(mlingly, should
be quashed as well.

Procedural and F(,ctut~l Summary.
By way 01' background. plaintiff, a police officer with the NYPD, brings this
action pw'suant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 V.S.c. § 1988 for violations of his Fourth und
Fourteenth Amendment rights, Ulld under New York State tort law against the City Defendants,
len (10) individual1y-mtmed mcmbers of the NYPD. Jamaica JIo~pi1al, and two (2) individually
named Jamaica lTo:spilal defendants. Prin1arily, plaintiff alleges (hat he. was unlawfully seized at
.

.

05/11/2012

FRI
- .... J

15:41
~;tI

F&X

2127884123

jl003/011

""

Honorable Robert W. Sweet

Schoolcnrll v, The City of New York. et al.

M~y11;2012

Page 2
his home by NYPD omcers on October 31, 2009, and ~ubsaqucntly involuntarily conlinecl at
Jamaicll Ho~pita] lor scvc~al days.
On Aprif 17, 2012, this office received Ii courtesy copy of a subpoena
subsequently served upon Coullcilman Peter Vallone, seeking the following documents: I
.
1. Any and all certified records of complaints received by Councilman IPctcr
Vallone/Albert Vannl from his constituents and/or from any third parties, relating
to tho following subject matters: (i) Downgrading of Crime Repolts by the
NYPD; and (ii) failurtllo Report Crime Repol}S by the NYPD;.
2. Any and un certiJicd copies of correspondence between Councilman [Peter
Vallone/Albert Vann] and Raymond Kelly and/or the NYPD relating to (i)
Downgrading of Crime Repotls by the NYPD; (U) Fail'-lrc to Rep<lrt Crime
Reporls by the NYPD; (iii) the allegations of Adriun Schoolcraft.
3. Any and all certified copies of complaints from police officers and/or constituents
regarding a quota policy by the NYPD regarding the number of "lTesls and/or

summonses which must be issued by officers on u monthly b"lSis.
4. Any and all certified copies of correspondence between CoullciJman i:Pctcr
Vallone/Albert Vann] and the NVPD regatditlg allegations of au unlawful quota
policy.

5. Any and all certHied copies of correspondence between Councilm.tn Weler
Vallone/Albert VannJ and Mayor Dloomberg regnrding allegations of an unlawful
quota policy by the NYPD amVor allegalions or downgrading crime reports by the
NYPD.

is

Be~allse the inll)ffilation plaintiff seeking is" outside the ,~cope of F,RC.P. 26,
the subpoena should bc quashed and the information sought therein denied,

The lltjorination Sought is Not Relevant
Discovery OJAdmi:,-sible Evidenc:tI

N()T

Reu.wmahly Calculated To Lead To The

."A subpoena issued lo a non-party pursuant to Rule 45 is subject to Rule
26(b)(1)'s overriding relevance requirement." Warnke v. 'CVS Corn., 265 FRD. 64, 66
(S.D.N.Y. 2010) (internal quotation omitted); see also Tn re Flag Telecom HoldinR~,.Ltd. See.
Litig., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXTS 69140~ at "'5~6 (S.D.N,Y. Sept. 13, 2006). Pursuant to Rule
26(b )(1) parties may obtain discovery "that is relevant to any party's claim (I" delt.ms~," Fcc\. R.
ClV. P. 26(b)(1). However, COUlts in this circuit have found a suhpoena upon a nOh-party to be
"an l.lmeasonable or burdensome misuse of lhe discovery process" where the information sought
I This office also I'eceived notice of an identical subpoena surYl.xl upon Councilman Albert Venn. The retum date
for both subpoenas was origilll:llly April 30, 2012, however. plaintiffs 'agreed to an enlargement of time until May
11, 2012,. rur the Councilmen to oomply. lTpon illfoimation and beliet~ CQuncilman Vctnn responded to Ihe subject
subpoenn 011 or about April 30; 2012.
2 Beyond mcr~ Councilman VaHon..:: furlher reserves his right to o~iect to the subpoena on tho h!io'lis or an undue
hardship and to provide an affidavit to tlInt effect, should the Court 80 rcquiro.

-

05/11/2012 FRI 15:41
,;n'

FAX [phone]
.""..
mo

.f,.,

1'l1'

~004/011"

Honorable Robert W. Sweet
Schoolcratl v. The City of New York, et al.
May 11,2012
Page 3
is of "doubtful or tangenti,d relevance." Et~cmann v. Greene, 1998 U.s. Dist. LEXIS 4591, at "'2
(S.D.N.Y. April 8, 1998); sec alsQ, Corbett v. eHome Credit Cor12., .2010 U.S. Disi. LRXIS
77712, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2010) ("A SUbpocl1a that pursues material with little apparent or
likely relevance to the subject maUer, ... is' likely to be quashed a~ unreasonable even where the
burden of complja~ce would not be onc,rous, pa11ioularJy where, as here, ,the person or entity on
whom the demand is made is not a patty to the action") (internal quoiution mark~ and citations
oniitted); Ackermann v. New York City Dep't of Info. Tech. & Telel:omms., 2010 U.S. Dist.
L]JXfS 28537, 3-4 (E.D.N.Y: Mar. 24, 20] 0). In fad, even where "some of the documenls
!mbpoenaed
may arguably satisfy the' broau concept of relevance fOf djscove~y pt;rposcs,"
courts have nevelthele:-;s quashed non-party subpoenas which sought lu,iditional information of
only "doubtful or ta11gcntial relcvance') to the factI' or th~ case. FilipQi v. Elmont Union Free
sr..:h. Disi. Bd. of ]Jduc., 2011 U.S. Dist: LEXIS 102310, at *5-6 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2011)
(citing Ackermann v. New York City OOQ't of Info. Tech., No. 09 CV 2436 (JBW)(LU), 2010,
U.S. DisC LEXIS 28537at >I< 1 (E.D.N.Y. Mal'. 24,2010)). As this Court has previously stated,
"[t]he party issuIng the subpoena must demonstrate that the information sought is reJevunt and
material to the allegatiolls und chtims at issue in the proceedings." Night Hawk Ltd. v.
13riarpatch Ltd., L.P., 03 Civ. 1382 (RWS). 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXTS 23179, a( "'23 (S.D.N. Y.Dec.
2:1,2003).

rr

Here, the documents sought by plaintiff reflecting whether there was any
downgrading of crime.reports, a failijre,to report crime reports, t)r even' un unlawful quota policy,
h<:lve Ii!tie or no bearing on ~e issues in thfsmaUer -' whether plaintitl' was unlawfuUy seized on
October 31, 2009 and thereafter illegally conllncd 'at Jamaica Hospital. Whether or not 11m
ullegations of crime reporting manipulation or quotas ,are true is immaterial to the detcrminatjon
of whether the officers entered plaintiff's apmtment lInju~Hfiably, what happened once they were
inside,and/or what huppened therean~r at Jamaica, Hospital. I;urthermore, it is absolutely
unclear how documents evirtcing complaints by constituents not plaintiff hiin::;dr concerning
crime ml1nipulation and/or arrest quotas have any relevance herein to the sole .issues in this casc
which relate to plaintiff s seizure and confinement. The s~rile can be said of any correspondence
be~een Councilman Vullone, Mayor Bloomberg anel/or Raymond Kelly pertaining to crime
manipuluti(Jn und/ot quotas. Plaintitl" s attempts to inject these extrumx)us issu~s into lhlS
litigation should bc'dcnied outright.
Allthitonaliy~ the subpocna should be quashed because Councllmun vallone
repn'lsents Astoria, Queens, whieh is within the confines of the 114th Precinct, Herc, plaintitl
cor:pplains solely about crime manipl.tliltion und quotas in the 81 SI Precinct located 13cdford
Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn where plaintiff worked, and for the most part, where the
'defendant onicel'S horein worked at the time of the incident. 3 Plaintiff does nol make ally
3 Defendants note for the Court's infonnation that C(luncilmlln Albert Vann, whu represents the Bedford Stuyves,Ult
section of Brook lyn, coycrcu by the 81:rt P(CCinCl, has complied with plaintiff's subpoena. TIlerefol'e, to the extent
that information pertaining to !;:rime manipulation/quotas within the g J" PTecin~t ha~ some arguable relevance 10
plaintiff's claim, plaintiff is already inpo,,~cssi()n or rc~ponsivc documents.
Interestingly, ill response to tIle
Sllhpu\!nii, Cuum:ilmun Vann produced three letters between himself and Commissioner Kelly, Two ofthu Icllcrl)
express the O:luncilman's displeasure with neputy Inspector Ml:luric11u, Lhe fortnor Commanding Officer of tile 81 BI
Precinct, and the c(lmmunily's desire to have inpul in the choice of Mauriello's successor as Commanding Oft1c~r.

05/11/2012 FRI 15: 41

...

FAX [phone]
'I'

iGI0 0 5(0 1:',

f';tf

Honorable Robert W. Sweet
Schoolcran v. The City of New York, et ill.
May 11,2012
Page 4
allegations whatsoever about crime .manipulation and quotas in Queens or in any precinct in that
borough. Therefore, any infonnation from Councilman, Vallone's district related to the, subject
topici{ is utterly irrelevunt to plaintiffs claims. Moreover, the fact that plaintiff is ~eeking
information from u wholly unrelated district suggests that cQunsel is not seeking the information
for its relevullce herein, but for its relevance in Stinson, et at v. City: of New York, ct aI., 10 CV
4228 (RWS), another litigation proceeding before Your Honor which doe.)' involve the issue of'
summons quotas. Tt is impennissible to seek "discovery one action ('or the purpose of ~molhcr,
and accordingly, any attempts by COUll!)el.tO do so should be'denied. Sec' Night Hawk Ltd., supra
at *24 ("Wl)cn the' purpose of discovery request is to gather in,fol'mation for use in proceedillg::;
other thrul'the pending suit, discovery is properly denied;") (citing,Nicholas v. Poughkeep::;i~ Say.
ilankiFSB, 1991 U.S. Dist. -LEXIS 8083, 'No. 90 eiv. 1607, 1991 WL 113279, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
June 14, 1991)).

,t

,~

Finally, with regt\rd to plaintiff's request for "correspondence between
Councilman Peter Vallone and Raymond Kelly and/or the NYPV relating lo 1"1 the allegations of
Adrian Schoolcrufl," the request as stated is too, vague and amhiguous to allow Councilman
Vallone to respond. However, to the extent that plaintifr is referring to his public allegations
fygarding crime reporting m(1nipulatioll and quo'tas, plaintiff's request for the documents should
be denied for the reus<.ll1S stated above.

Conclusion
Bused on the foregoing, llon'-party Councilman Peter Vallone rcspectfullysuhmits
that the requesteu records are only, at best; of doubtful or tangential relevance, und thus, the
subpoenushould be quashed, since it is beyond the scope of Red. R. eiv. P. 26:
The ullder~igncd thanks the Court for'its consideration he~eih,

RespcetfuUy submitted,

S~I1Ck~

Assistant Corporution Counsel
,

cc:

'

Jon L Norinsbetg (By Fax 212:-406-6890)'
A (torney/()r Plaintiff
225 Broadway, Suite 2700

New York, New York '10001'

The, third letter fi'om Commissioner Kelly, simply indicates tho:J.l.I,hc NYPD will investigate lhe Councilman'S
coricenls. Iflhc Conncilman Vmm's response has such tenuous relevance to the claims'herein, it is lHll'd to imaginu
that CouncihUfUl Vallone, who:o;c dis trii..:l ,is outside the 8 pI Precinct, would have any relevant infollllation.

05/11/2012 FRI 15:42
'~.'

FAX [phone]

If:t''

Honorable Robert W. Sweet

Schoolcraft v. Ibe City" of New Yorkl..ct al.

May 11, 2012
Page 5

'

Cohen & Fitch, LLP (By Fax [phone])
Gerald Cohen
Joshua Filch
Allorneysfor Plaintiff'
233 13roadway, Suite 1800
New York, New York 10279
Gregory John Radomisli (By Fax [phone])
MARTIN CLEARWATER & H,'::LI. LLP

Attorneys for Jam(lica Hm;pilal-Medical Center
220 Rust ,42nd Street 13th 1'1001'
New York, NY 100,17
13rian J ,ee (By Fax 5 J 6-352-4952)
lVONE, DEVINJJ & JENSEN, TJ.P
Attorneysfor Dr. lmk bmkov
2001 'MarCI,.L'I A venue, Suite N 100
Lake Success, New York fl042
13ruce M. Brady (By Fax [phone])
CALLAN, KOSTER, llRADY & BRENNAN, LLP
Allorneysfor Lillian Aldana-Bernier
J Whitehall Street
. N~w York, New York 10004 .

05!1l~2012 FRI 15: 42

FAX ~.l271S4123

.".,..

,.,

EXHIBIT A

~007!011

')5/11/2012 FRI 15: 42
,',
n,

FAX [phone]

"'"

1irZl2,0S/Oll

'

,

COURTESY COpy

AO gSB (Rev. 061[)9) Sllbpoena 10 Produce {}oQum~nl~. \Of\JnllAII(ln. or Objec'" or 10 Penni! r"'l'!lCtion ofl'rilttlls~~ il' II Civililotion

-=

UNITED STATE~ DISTRICT COURT
tor the

i
I O~. 0 ~
0/..0:>

Southern I)i:;;tnci of New York

)-

ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT,

,)

v.

CIYll Action No.

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et aI.,

)
)

)

(If the aclio!) is

Dqfsmkrnf

F

")

!'Jaln/lff

'f

"~O 7

.)

10 CV 4228 (RWS)

\lendin.>1 in Imother district, ~tai" where;

sunpO..:NA TO PRODUCF: DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJll.CTS
OR TO PERMIT INSPECnON OF l1n."f-M1SJ<;g IN A CIVIL ACTION

To:

..

Councilman Peter Vallone
22-45 3h,t Street, Astoria, New York 11105

¥

Production: YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce Ilt the time, date, and pla<.:c set forrh below the following
documents, electronically Stored intonnation, or object~l and permit their inspection, copying, tcs[ing, or sampling of the
material: SEE ATTACHED RIDER A FOR ITEMS AND INFORMATION TO BE PRODUCED

'Fl&C~: L~;"O'ffl~~;';f J~~ L~·N~;~-~b'~~~·'
225 Broadway, Su!to 2700
, ..._~~\N"y~r.,k"..J~.Y,,~99'O.!., ,,' .. '

,,""",..,.,
04/30/201210:00 am

"' .."'''' __ .''','''',,___~-,,--'''',

•.• _

.,~

I

J

n insp(;crion o/Premi;'ms; YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit enlry onto the designated premises, land, or
other property po:::~c..~$ed or C<l!lttolled by you at the: tin1e, date. and 1()Cation set forth below. 60 that the req\lQstillg party
may inspect, meaSUI'e, survey, phQtograph, test, o[ sample the property or any designated object or operatiol1 on it.

.

Place:

',,', ..
...- "" . ,.- .. _­
Date and Time:
""~

i

!

...----.,-.-,-.--~----~-------------.. ..

------~------------~--~.----~--~----~---

The pmvillions of Jled, R, Ciy, p, 45(c), relating to your protection lUi a pers()n ~ubjt:CI ID a subpoena, anJ Rule
45 (d) and (e). (elnting to your duty to respOild to thilf l:lt.lbroena and the potolltia! cOrnl!:',qu'Mces of not doing ,,0, nre

Dntc: _.__.Q4liIllill2_

CLERK OF COURT
OR
, .. ,.... - -_ .. ,.... ...., .
q/,C/el'k OJ" [)::{JtJ~I' Clerk
~

Si{JIICltul'l!

The name, address, e.-mail, ~md t,elephone number of the nttomcy representing (t/CIme ofparlJ1

AQf~I~NS,CHO.oLCRAF,I"

,P,I,A!NJJEE. ... .".. ,,_""" . ,,"".,".
'"'''' "."........,.,,"'.
.. ,'" '''' ", ", "." .,," "";".."" .. ," ' who b:->ucs or requests this SUbpUCllI:\, are:
Law Offloes of Jon L. Norinsberg. 225 Broadway, Suite 2700, New York NY 10007
JON. L. NORINSBERG, ESQ.
Tel: [phone]
E-MAil: [e-mail]

05/11/2012 FRI 15:42
•• '..

J;I;~

FAX [phone]
IJl

IlJ009/011

• to"

AD P.SfI (Rev, 0(,/09) Sllhro~11II to Produce D()'\1~lemR. lnfmmatuD. III O\Jjecili ur l() PClmil InspeOlion ofPrOml~e~ in a Civil ACli()Il (['allc 2)
5

CIvil Action No. 10 CV 4228 (RWS)
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section '''',ould 1IQ( be flied with (lte eOlu't unles" re.quired by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)

This subpoena for
W,lS n~ccivecJ

(11(1111« 0/ indlvictual and litis,

If lillY)

by me on (do/e)

n ] served the

~ubpoella

by delivering 'Q copy to the named renmn as follow!;'

on (daiL')

o

; or

1 rCllltllOO the subpoena unexecuted because:

Unless the lIubpocoa Will; issued on behalf of the United Stutes, Qr Ol\e of ijs omcers or agent;.!, I have also
tendcrcu to the witnelHI fees for one day's attendance. and the mileage allowed by low. in the 9ffiount of
$

My fees an: $

fot' trawl and $

for services, for

it

totlll of $

J declare under penalty of perjury lhat this infOlmation js true.

Dale:

........... ....

Server) .\'lZHf./IIIf'1J
~.,

.-

~,,~---:""~.

Prim(;!d "am~ and (Ir/e

Server's (frirJl'1!.<'.r

Additional iDfomllltion regarding attempted service, etc:

--

05/11/2012 FRI 15!42

FAX [phone]

AO 8RB (R()~. 06!O') .!iubfloen~ to Prl>('I1~~ Dacumcms,
~f'jj

=

-=;-:....

lllflltrTI.1lion, orOlli~-cfn or I~ h"mil

#9

inapC<:tion

::=

"r i'fL1T,i~cs in II civU Action(I'''IIt: J)
•

lledcral Rule of Civil Proc~durc 45 (c), (d), and (e)
(c) Protll!ctlng 11 PC'UIJJ/ Subject to .. Sllbpoenll,
(1) Avoiding UfI{l(le «(mill" ()f E.tpe1#lfl!; Sum::tion/i. A party or
~llbl)IlI.m!i must t.~J<e
reas(lnable steps ro :;Ivoid Imposing uodue burden rJt expense (,)1) n
pcr~(Jn subject to I'he ~UbpO"Il11. Thei~suing oO\lrl runsl enforce this
dUty l\J1d impp,5c Illl appropril1Lc sanction
whicll may include lost
tllrnings and reillionabl", 3tt(lrTtey's fees ...... (1I'l GparL)' (.r altorney
who faill': 10 comply.

Ilttomey responslble for issllin!l lmd serving Il

(1) Cummand ttJ Prod"ell Ml1rtrials or l't!rmit InspectIun.
(A) App~l1mllL'r Not Re:(jlJirllt/. A l>crllol1 commanded to rroducc

documcnts, eleclronically .tored intormQtion, or tangible ming~, or
penni ~ the inspection of pn'Hlises, need not a~pcar in person at tht;
rlaco of pl'1111ncliUIl Of inspcc\i()1l L1nkss llll'tl commflnded to appenr
fOf'!'! dep";lilion, bearinal, fir trial.
(8) Objection.,. A person conunlmdcJ 10 produ(;c docum!;nl6 or
liUl3ibie !hj,,!g~ llr to permit in:;p",ctlon m~y ~erve on the party or
!!ttorney d"~i~mttcd in thG I'ubpoenl\ 1\ written objectioil to
i116pccting, copying, lI::lIling Of immJlljl\~ any or ali of the mater(lll~ or
III inspecting, the premises
or 1(1 producing elcctroniCll Hy stored
inronnatioll in the /Cll1l1 or rom'~' fC"llleslod, Thl! obji3etiQn must be
served bctQr.;; lht earlicr of tht: lime~pccif1ed for compliance ur \4
days lifter lhe SUbPOCll1l i$ !lcrved, If lin objection i~ nIade, the
fnllowing rulCij apply:
'
(1) At any lime, on nonce to tl1e commllnded person, the llCrvillg
party In''Y 1I1(we the ill!iuing eCUlt for I.In order compelling production
or irlllj'lectiol1.
'
.(H) T11esc ncb; may be required only llll directed in the unh.l(, mul
the urder musl protect a IJerson who i~ l.either a ['urty nur II party'5
ol'ncer from significunt txpemc f1.!5ullillg from cmnpli!lIl~e.
(3) 'QIIIl!>hillg or MfUlifjJiI,-Y:(J SlIbp(JI!rm.
(A) When Requirr.d, On timely ml)\iOn. the ili5uin~ CO\lli l11ust
qlll1Hh or modify II subpoena Ihat:
(i) fllil~ III allow ~ rea~onable time to Gl!mpJy;
(II) r\lquir68 p persml who is Ilciti1t~r n party I)or n Pllfty '.g (JHlr;or
10 trovel more linn 100 TnileS from whllro thllt person resid<lS. i.
cmpl(lyed, or regularl)' trnllSftqs b\!~ille~s in POfllOn - excupt thaI,
;;\lbjec[ [0 Rule 45(<:)(3)(B)(iii). the person mllY be commanded to
attend ~ ,trilli by traveling from finy sHeil plum) wirhin the Sl~tc where
lhe tri~l is hold;
(Iii) requjre!! disclosure of l"rivllclled or olhur protectc:d matler, if
no c~cepti(}~ or wlli~er llpplies: or
10

(a.) When I'ermlrt(!d. 't'" pttJtec.t II pcr:'}O\1 lIutii(lct IQ or ;'fl~ctc(] by
Il subpoenll, the issuing court (MY, 011 mOlion, quash Of mOdifY the
3ublmeo<l if it requirlls:
(I) di~closing I> lrlKle secret or o~het confidentilll rl!scarch,
(h.",~lopmellt, or commercial inH~ffi1ntion;
(1\) disclosing an ul\retllined e~pert's opinion or information ih:.rt
does·l\o! deAcnbe ~Ilccific O"C!1rCenCeS ill dispute and re~ulLg from
Ihl! c:t.p¢fi.'S study thal W!l~ not rcquo~[1;<1 by !l pony; or
(iii) a person whl) i~ lIelthcr 1\ PQTty nor !I pjmy'~ ufficor In inCUf
suh.~rantial expense to travel rn'nre fllnn 1OU t{Jil~~ to attend Irial.

{C) Sp(l(:!lYlng C,mdlllOflS as "', A ltematfv(!. In the circumAtnl1c,,~
de~cribed ilr Rule 4:>(,,)(.))(1'l), the court may, il1lltcl\tI of q\l~"hing or
fTl~ltljfylHg fl subpuena, order appl;);\r~ce Of pro\luction undor
specified c(lIlditiorl::t ifUll; ~erving party;
(i) show~ a Rubstantitll need for' the te~tim~ny or ntateritll that
CIiTlOl,lt

be otherwise mer wilhllut undue hl\tdl:hip: and

(ii) Iln8urc~ that (he subpoenaed person will h~ rellsonflbly

corripcns ~ted.

"

* .. __

(l~ffectlvc

_

12/1107)

(d) Duties in Responding to lJ. Subpoena,
(1) f'rQdlldIJI; Di)CU"1tml.~' ar ElefJtfllniclJliy Stored 11l/ormQfj(l1/.

These proccdurt!~ apl]\Y to produuing Jocumcnts or cicctrollic!llly

st(ln,tl inlorrtl,nion:

(A) ;)oclJmrmrs.·A person l'e~p()lldjng to r. ~lIbpO\:l11a to produce
document/! must produce them U~ they arc kcpt in the mdin",},
course of business or mUiH or~alli(,e and IlIbc:llhem lu uOl'n;spllTl(1 to
the cntegol'ies in the demand.
(0) Form jor Pmillldng .R/e(:(f'()tlic:olfy S/ored Ili/u/'maticm Not

S'pe.C'lfied If ~ ~llbl)Qellll dues not specify 3 form for producing
electronil:lIlly ~l(ll'ed inf(wmlltion, the person fe.ronding must
produce It ill :.I lorm !c.rrr1S in which it is onlinnrily l110illlllincil [)r
in a reasonably u~l1ble form or fOlms,

or

(C) t.'lec:n'ol1;,,(J/{Y ,)'t(JI'r~d III/om/eliot! Prodm:ed In Only Onl!
Fol'n/. The person responding ncoo llot produce the ~llm\J

electl'onicll-lly

~I(.wed

infuITI.ation ill morc lh,m olle fonn.

(D) fnacce.lwiUe If!r;r:tron!wIlJi .";();'M h!Jiml!~.fiorl. The pr.rSIJll
responding need mll provide: disc~J'Ycry Q(llicctrol'iically ~I"rcd

inH,)fln3lioll from source" lh:.a the r(!I~~m idt.mtifu:~ all !101I'Cilson~bly
IIcce:>sibie beCIIl!Se of u11(,h).c burden nr cost. Oil TTIOti()n to compel
discovery or for a prot<:ctive order, the person responding must ~huw
Ihat the infotm~tioll i~ 11llt rCBsolll!\)ly ncco3~ihle because ofundlle
1:1111'11en or cost. If lhat showing is made, the (10mt m~y l1(methelcs~
urder discovery from sll~h .ourcc$1 f rhe reqn;l'ling plllly xhows
gOO\!c1luse, considcrin.g the litnitatiomi Of Rule 26(b)(2)«(;), The
court may sp'i!cify conditioTlti for the discovery,
(2) CllI-lmlng Pri.'illl/lc or Pf'()(f!ctlol/..
(A) in/ormatioTJ Withheld, I\. person withholdill£ sulYpO(;lllled
infll11'l11ltiofl umk:r a claim thut it is privileged OT ~llbjec\ to
protection as trial-preparmirm mutl.!ri!l\ 1fIU.~t:
(I) c~rnls~ly make tile cll\tm; alld
(it) describe the nlltuTe ofthc withheld dO(;llrilents,
COrpnllllli~tlli~m~, or tungible Ihinv;~ III 1\ ll1al1n~T that, without
rc:veaHng information itself privileged or protected, will cnuble the
parties ~o '1.~~Cllll tllO claim.

(0) in/(JI'Il1af/Ori Prudu(!,'!(I. If informali()f\ prQduccd III rc~ponse to a
S~lbp(lel\a

is .8u~icel to II claim of privilege or of protection 11:; trial·
preparationmtllerial, the person making Ihe claim may nOtHy aoy
party thot received tbe itlfoTmlltion of the clflim ami the bft3is for it.
Aller being nl)\ifled, II party musl promptly return, sequc~!er, or
(I<:~troy the specified Infomlati(1Il uno all)' copies it hilS; nmst no{ lIse
. 'd 't! the infunnation tmtH the chlim is reMlvcd; must take
TCllstlnulJle S'tcp~ to retrieve the illform~\wn { 11) pH Y I,~C Q~C
berQl'\'! being l~oLihl,ld; and may promptly pf()~cnt'th0 IJlfonnatiou I()
ilie coun under ~ellJ tor" d1:termin!ltio!l of the claim The pcrSOIi
who produced tho inroflUodon must pn:scrv\llhe infot1l'1!!.tion unl1l
the claim if; rCllolvcd.
(il) Contempt. The i~"llillg court mny holu in conl.eml1t a perso!!
who, baving been ~cfVcd, (uils without udequatc CX.CUSC t,lllbey The
slIbpoCTllL A flonlltlTt)l'~ tililure'to obey mllst be excllsed if til£.
~ubpoena p\lIporl~ to reqllire tile nonp~r\y l(l attend {Jf prodllct! at II
pl1lC6 outside the. Iiillils of Kille <I 5{r.)(J )(f\)(ii).

05/11/2012 FRI 15!42

'"

FAX [phone]
• ':.

1ii!I0ll/Oll

1t1!

RIDER A TO SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS 1 INFORMATION, OR

OBJECTS

OR TO PERMIT INSPfCJION OF PREMISES IN A CIVil ACTION

Any and all certified records of complaints received hy COtll1cilm~ P,eter Vallone from
hil'l constitllcntsand/or from any third parties, relating to the following subject matters: (i)
Downgrading of Crim~ Reports by- the' NYPD; and (ii) Failure to Report Crime Reports
by the NYPD;
,

Any and an'certified copies of correspondence between COlUlcilmari Peter Vallone und
Raymond Kelly and/or the NYPD relating to (i) Downgrading of Crime Reports by the
NYFD; (iO'Failure to Report Crime Reports by the NYPD; (iii) lhe allegations of Adrian
Schoolcraft:
'

Any and all certified copies of complaints from police officers and/or constituents
regarding a quota policy by the NYPD regarding the number of arrests and/or summonses
which must be issued by oflicers on n monthly basis.
Any and all cel1ified copies of correspondence between Councilman Vallone and the
NYPD regarding allegations of an unlawful quota policy_
Any and aU certified copies com:spondence between Councilman Vallone and Mayor
Bloomberg regarding allegations of an unlawful quota policy by the ~YPD and/or
allegatlonsof downgrading crime reports by the NYPD.
­

05/11 1,,201:'. FRI 15~ 41

FAX [phone]
...
f'lIf •

1j;!J001/011

~

NEW YORK

LAW DEPARTMENT

THE CITY OF

1()O CHURCH STREET
Nnw YORK, NY 10007

FACSlMlI,E TRANSMISSION
TO:

FAX #.

Honorable Robert W. Sweet·
United States District Judge
SOllthem District of New York
soo Pearl Stroet .
New York, New York 10007

fROM:

[phone]

DATE:

William S.J. Fntenk\;l)
Phone; [phone]

FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]

MAY 11,2012

You should receive Eleveb (11) page(s), including Ihjg one.
Please contact me if you do not receive all pilge~.

'l1lis facshnile cOT1lain~ CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION which m'ay also bu LEGALLY PRlVTU:<:GED. It is
intended unly for use of the addressee(s) nitmcd above. If you are neither Ihe: intended recipient of1his facsimile IIor
Lhe employee or agent re~p(}nMiblc: for delivering it to lh~ inLended recipient, yuu arc hereby notified lhal
disseminating llT copying this facsimile is prohibited. lfyoll have received this facsimile in error, plClilltl notify this
office hy LC.I.?photie and retum the
to l~e_address set forth by tho LJ_~i~ed States Postal Scrvil,)u_ .Thank you.

Re: Schoolcraft v. The City of New York. et uJ.
Civil Action No, lO-Civ.-6005 (RWS)
Law Dept. No. 2010-033074
Copies Vhl. Facsimile Transmission To:

1,. Norinsbcrg (J1'ax 212-406-(890),225 Broadwuy, Suite 2700, New York, New York

10007

.1011

Coh~n & Fitch,

LLP (J1'ax 212-406-2313), Gerald Cohen, Joshua Fitch) 233 Uroadway, Suite
1800, New York, New YOlk lO279

Gregory Jo1m RadomislqFax 212-949-7054), MarthrCleurwaler & Bell LLP, 220 Rnst 42nd
Street, 13 th Jiloor, New York, NY 10017
',

Briai1 Le~ (Fax .[phone]), Tvonc, Devine & jensen LLP. 2001 Murcus Avenue, Suite NIOO~
Lakc Success, NY 11042
.
Bruce M. Brady (Fax 212-248-(815), Callan, Koster, Brady & Brennen LLP. 1 Whitehul1 Rtreet
New York, NY 10004