Weiss v. City University of New York et al

Filing 187

ORDER granting 181 Letter Motion to Compel. Application Granted. Plaintiff is directed to comply with the Court's Order dated May 20, 2022 (ECF No. 178) no later than June 30, 2022. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at ECF No. 181. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo on 6/13/2022) (rro)

Case 1:17-cv-03557-VSB-VF Document 187
181 Filed 06/13/22
06/09/22 Page 1 of 2

STATE OF NEW YORK
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
LETITIA JAMES

DIVISION OF STATE COUNSEL

ATTORNEY GENERAL

LITIGATION BUREAU

June 9, 2022
By ECF
Honorable Valerie Figueredo
United States Magistrate Judge
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

6-13-2022

Plaintiff is directed to comply with the Court’s Order dated
May 20, 2022 (ECF No. 178) no later than June 30, 2022. The
Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at
ECF No. 181.

Re: Weiss v. City University of New York, et. al., No. 17 Civ 3557 (VSB) (DCF)
Dear Judge Figueredo:
This Office represents the Defendants in the above-referenced action. I write to oppose
Plaintiff’s motion seeking reconsideration of the Court’s May 20, 2022 Order, which directed Plaintiff
to either verify her responses to two of Defendants’ post-deposition document requests or produce
the documents identified therein. See Order, ECF No. 178. I further request that the Court order
Plaintiff’s counsel to comply with the Order by June 20, 2022 (or another date certain).
On April 29, 2022, Defendants moved to compel Plaintiff to either verify her responses to
two of Defendants’ post-deposition document requests or produce the documents identified therein.
See Motion to Compel, ECF No. 171. Represented by Susanne Toes Keane of the New York Legal
Assistance Group, Plaintiff opposed Defendants’ motion on May 4, 2022. See Plaintiff’s Opposition,
ECF No. 173. The Court held a conference regarding the motion on May 19, 2022, at which Plaintiff
was again represented by Ms. Toes Keane. On May 20, 2022, the Court granted Defendants’ motion
to compel and directed Plaintiff “to either produce documents that are responsive to Document
Requests 2 and 4, served by Defendant following Plaintiff’s deposition, or to verify her responses to
those requests.” See Order, ECF No. 178 at p. 2.
Immediately after the Order was issued, I forwarded the Order to Ms. Toes Keane, and asked
that she produce the requested documents or Plaintiff’s verified response no later than May 27, 2022.
Having received neither a response to my email nor the requested documents by May 31, 2022, I
emailed Ms. Toes Keane again asking that Plaintiff comply with the Court’s Order by June 3, 2022.
On June 2, 2022, Ms. Toes Keane replied that the Order “did not specify a date for Ms. Weiss’s
compliance and I did not agree to the dates you imposed for compliance with the Judge’s Order.” See
Email Correspondence attached as Exhibit A. Ms. Toes Keane also informed me that her
“representation for the post-deposition discovery is concluded” and advised me to follow up with
Plaintiff directly regarding the Order. Id.
However, as Ms. Toes Keane is well aware, former Magistrate Judge Freeman had explicitly
directed her to respond to the requests at issue on behalf of Plaintiff, as well as to respond to any

28 LIBERTY STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10005 ● PHONE [phone] ● WWW.AG.NY.GOV

Case 1:17-cv-03557-VSB-VF Document 187
181 Filed 06/13/22
06/09/22 Page 2 of 2
Hon. Valerie Figueredo
June 9, 2022

Page 2

follow-up. See Order re: Joint Status Report, ECF No. 170 (“[C]ounsel who represented Plaintiff at
her deposition is directed to respond, in writing, to the discovery requests made at the deposition or
in follow-up thereto.”). Ms. Toes Keane represented Plaintiff at her deposition and, accordingly, it
was Ms. Toes Keane who, on behalf of Plaintiff, interposed both the initial and supplemental
responses to the document requests at issue; opposed Defendants’ motion to compel in connection
with those requests; and appeared at the Court conference regarding the motion. For Ms. Toes Keene
to now disclaim any responsibility for complying with the Court’s Order resolving that very motion is
impractical at best.1
In any event, a few hours after Ms. Toes Keane told me to follow-up with Plaintiff directly
regarding the Court’s Order because her representation had concluded, Plaintiff filed a letter motion
pro se in which she “objected” to that Order and asked the Court to reconsider its decision. See
Plaintiff’s Letter Motion, ECF No. 179. Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration is groundless and should
be summarily denied.
“The standard for granting [ ] a motion for reconsideration is strict, and… will be denied
unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked – matters,
in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Shrader
v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). Reconsideration of a prior
ruling is justified only when there has been “an intervening change of controlling law, the availability
of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Virgin Atlantic
Airways, Ltd. v. National Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992) (quoting 18 C. Wright, A.
Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 4478 at 790). Plaintiff makes no such showing. Rather,
Plaintiff seeks to justify her flagrant noncompliance with the Court’s May 20, 2022 Order by making
baseless and spurious accusations about issues that have already been decided. Defendants will not
respond to those accusations except to say that they are entirely without merit.
In short, it has been five years since Plaintiff filed this lawsuit challenging an admissions
decision that was made seven years ago. The parties engaged in discovery for more than three years,
and Plaintiff was represented by counsel during all that time. Yet Plaintiff has failed to uncover any
evidence to support her claims in this case. Attempting to escape this reality, Plaintiff now seeks to
continue to stall. Defendants, on the other hand, seek finality. Accordingly, we respectfully request
that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and order Plaintiff’s counsel to comply with
its May 20, 2022 Order by June 20, 2022 (or another date certain) so that Defendants can complete
this outstanding discovery, move for summary judgment, and finally bring this case to a close.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ JOHANE SEVERIN
Johane Severin
Assistant Attorney General
[phone]

1

Indeed, based on Ms. Toes Keane’s statement that her representation of Plaintiff has concluded, it is unclear whether
she intends to appear on Plaintiff’s behalf at the conference scheduled for June 13, 2022 to address Plaintiff’s motion
for reconsideration. See Scheduling Order, ECF No. 180. I forwarded the Scheduling Order, which directs “[c]ounsel
for the parties” to appear, to Ms. Toes Keane, as well as Plaintiff’s attorneys at Baker Botts, but have not received any
response.