Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 162 Filed 08/27/2003 Page 1 of 25

F/LE:O

"N CLERKS 0 U.S. DISTRICT ron •.1'1'10'

AU

'N.V,

* UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

G2 72003

.*..... ' - E-A--ST-E-R--,N--D--IS--T-R-I-C-T--O--F--N-E-W--Y-O--R-K---------tt:.v'"PE.

M
AM'

-

----- Michael. Spinner et a~ia,

---

__
....

Pl.aintiffs,

CV-0l.-2715 (CPS)

- against City of New York et a~ia,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Defendants.
----------------------------------------x

SIFTON, Senior Judge.

Pl.aintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution against defendant City of New York, asserting

that defendant's unwritten pol.icy of strip searching detainees,

at the processing and hol.ding facil.ity known as Brookl.yn Central.

Booking ("BCB") is unconstitutional.. Currentl.y before this Court

is defendant's objection to the January 28, 2003 order ("January

28th Order") of Magistrate Judge Pol.l.ak that denied defendants

motion to disqual.ify pl.aintiffs' counsel. Richard Cardinal.e

("Cardinal.e") and Michael. Hueston ("Hueston") (col.l.ectivel.y,

"pl.aintiffs' counsel.").

BACKGROUND

The fol.l.owing facts are drawn from the submissions of

the parties and are undisputed unl.ess otherwise noted. I recite

onl.y those facts necessary to decide the present motion.

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 162 Filed 08/27/2003 Page 2 of 25
-2-
Plaintiffs' counsel were formerly employed by defendant as Assistant Corporation Counsels ("ACC"'s) in the Special Federal Litigation Division ("SFLD") of the New York City Law Department. The SFLD represents defendant and its officials in civil rights cases brought in federal court involving allegations of police, District Attorney, or correction officer misconduct. Between June 1999 and until the case was settled on February 9, 2001, Hueston represented defendant in Kellner v. City or New York, an individual action brought by a felony arrestee who alleged that he was unconstitutionally strip searched at Manhattan Central Booking by DOC officers on January 3, 1997, in accordance with a written Department of Corrections ("DOC") policy. During the time that Kellner was pending, Norma Kerlin ("Kerlin") an ACC in the SFLD also was representing defendant in Tyson v. City or New York, a class action brought on behalf of all persons who had been or would be arrested for misdemeanor or non-criminal offenses in New York and Queens Counties and then were or would be strip searched pursuant to City, DOC, and New York City Police Department ("NYPD") policy, practice, or custom. Hueston did not represent defendant or participate substantially in Tyson.
On May 2, 2001, plaintiffs filed a complaint in this Court challenging the constitutionality of the NYPD's unwritten policy of strip searching misdemeanor arrestees at BCB. The case was subsequently referred to Magistrate Judge Pollak for pretrial preparation.

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 162 Filed 08/27/2003 Page 3 of 25
- 3On February 8, 2002, defendants moved to disqualify plaintiffs' counsel because of a conflict of interest stemming from Hueston's alleged exposure to privileged and confidential information regarding strip-search practices while employed by the SFLD.!/ Specifically, defendant alleged that Hueston had obtained confidential and privileged information gathered in preparation for its defense in TYson because Hueston initially believed that plaintiff in Ke~~ner was an "opt-out" member of the TYson class. Hueston, through an unsworn declaration, initially denied these allegations and maintained that he never spoke to any DOC or NYPD officials regarding the strip-search policy for misdemeanor arrestees because such policies were irrelevant to his defense in Ke~~ne~/, that he never received any privileged materials or information relating to strip searches, and that he never spoke to Kerlin regarding either TYson or Ke~~ner. Based on Hueston's declaration and defendant's failure to present any evidence beyond its conjecture that Hueston was probably exposed to privileged and confidential materials related to TYson, Magistrate Judge Pollak denied defendant's motion for disqualification in an order dated May 20, 2002 ("May 20 th Order") .

11 Defendants concede that Cardinale did not personally or substantially participate in either the Manhattan or Queens strip-search cases and, thus, seek to disqualify Cardinale on the basis of his partnership with Hueston.

y

It is undisputed that strip searches of persons charged with felony

offenses are governed by different considerations than those that govern strip

searches following a misdemeanor arrest.

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 162 Filed 08/27/2003 Page 4 of 25

- 4Thereafter, in a subsequent notice of motion dated June 10, 2002, defendants filed objections to the May 20ili Order with this Court. On June 28, 2002, while these motions were pending before this Court, defendants, following a telephone conference with Magistrate Judge Pollak, agreed to withdraw their objections and sought reconsideration by Magistrate Judge Pollak pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the May 20th Order in light of "newly discovered evidence." Defendant's newly discovered evidence consisted of the Kellner case file, which had been misplaced following the events of September 11, 2001, after which the SFLD was abruptly relocated from its offices at 100 Church Street. Defendants alleged that the contents of the case file contradicted some of the assertions that Hueston had made in his unsworn declarations .JI First, defendant alleged that contrary to Hueston's unsworn assertions, he had in fact litigated Kellner as a ~son opt-out case from June 1999 to February 2000. To support this allegation defendant offered two settlement abstracts prepared by Hueston on January 20 and February 3, 2000.il In the January 20 th abstract, Hueston states that "plaintiff's name is not a Tyson class member ... [and that h]e has opted out of the class."

Defendant has provided Magistrate Judge Pollak and this Court with unredacted copies of the Ke~~ner case file for in camera review.

if

The February 3 rd abstract suggests that by this date Hueston knew that

Kellner was not an opt-out member of the ~son class. In it he writes that the

case should be settled for the "nuisance value" or $17,500 because "plaintiff was

strip-searched while still charged with a felony, which is lawful."

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 162 Filed 08/27/2003 Page 5 of 25
- 5Hueston further states that, "[a]ccording to DOC arrest records, there is nothing to suggest that DOC would have a basis to conduct a strip search [on plaintiff]." Hueston also surmised that a claim that plaintiff was not stripped searched would likely be unsuccessful at trial because "it runs contrary to our concession in TYson, and it seems to me that we would want to maintain consistent positions."
Second, defendant challenged Hueston's assertion that he never spoke to Kerlin about that case or Kellner. To establish this claim defendant offered e-mails exchanged between Kerlin and Hueston wherein Hueston asked to discuss Kellner further by telephone and inquired into settlement figures for Tyson claimants. Defendant also pointed to the above-mentioned settlement abstracts in which Hueston indicated that he had spoken to Kerlin regarding an appropriated settlement in Kellner, as well as supervisors' notes on memoranda assigning Kellner to Hueston, directing him to talk to Kerlin and to attend a meeting she led concerning strip-search cases. Y
Third, defendant attempted to discredit Hueston's statement that the only documents he had requested during his involvement with Kellner were those pertaining to Kellner's arrest. Defendant offered formatted requests for materials
Hueston does not now dispute that he attended such a meeting, but he maintains that the meeting was "l.ike every Law Department meeting in that it involved a discussion of substantive law" and that "at no point during the meeting were confidential attorney-client communications discussed." Defendant does not argue that any attorney-client communications were discussed at this meeting.

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 162 Filed 08/27/2003 Page 6 of 25
- 6-
addressed to the paralegal unit of the SFLD, which were signed by Hueston and detailed his requests for prisoner rosters, command logs, central booking logs, patrol guide provisions, and a copy and all drafts of DOC Institutional Order DD 11.16.0, a directive drafted by Manhattan Central Booking warden Alonzo Davis ("Davis,,).§J Defendant alleged that these documents further indicated that Hueston had treated Ke~~ner as a ~son opt-out case.
Fourth, defendant offered documents from the Ke~~ner file indicating that Hueston had scheduled a "follow-up" appointment with Davis on a date between October 4 and October 8, 1999, and that Hueston had met with an unnamed client on October 7, 1999. Defendant also offered a declaration by Davis stating that he had visited the Law Department in or about the fall or spring of 1999 and that he had met with a "male black attorney" whose name he could not recall. Defendant alleged that these documents contradicted Hueston's claim that his only contact with Davis had been a "fifteen second" phone conversation. Defendant also pointed to documents reflecting that on February 2, 2002, Hueston met with both Police Officers Bellomo and Colluso, the arresting officers in Ke~~ner; this contradicted Hueston's previous claim that he had only met with Bellomo.
Fifth, defendant attempted to contradict Hueston's statement that he had never represented New York City Police Commissioner Howard Safir, by offering a letter written by
This document was at the center of the ~son litigation.

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 162 Filed 08/27/2003 Page 7 of 25
- 7Hueston to the Honorable Kirnba Wood in which Hueston stated that he represented both the City of New York and Commissioner Safir in Ke~~ner. Other documents showed that Hueston had been assigned Ke~~ner on June 8, 1999, and that Safir had not been eliminated as a defendant in the case until July 8, 1999.
Finally, defendant alleged that Hueston had misrepresented the extent of his involvement in the settlement of Ke~~ner. Defendant offered a letter written by Stephen Weiner ("Weiner"), plaintiff's counsel in Ke~~ner, and addressed to Hueston regarding settlement of that case; Weiner's telephone records showing that Weiner called Hueston on December 13, 1999; and a letter from Weiner to Muriel Goode Trufante, an SFLD employee, expressing his appreciation for her processing settlement papers to permit payment of $10,000 to Kellner. Defendant alleged that these documents belied Hueston's claim that his involvement in the settlement negotiations did not extend beyond offering a $3,001 offer of judgment.
In response to this newly discovered evidence, Magistrate Judge Pollak placed Hueston under oath on September 6 and 20, 2002. On both these occasions Hueston was cross-examined by defense counsel. While under oath Hueston admitted that certain of his statements had been inaccurate and that his recollection has been refreshed by the newly discovered Ke~~ner file. In particular he stated that his recollections of settlement discussions was "faulty"; that he could not be certain that he had only interviewed Police Officer Bellomo on February

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 162 Filed 08/27/2003 Page 8 of 25
- 82, 2002; that he had in fact exchanged e-mails with Kerlin but that he had received no substantive or confidential information from her; and that between June and December 1999 or January 2000, while he was waiting for information in response to discovery requests, there was a certain period of time where he may have believed that Ke~~ner was a TYson opt-out case.
In the January 28ili Order, Magistrate Judge Pollak credited Hueston's representations to the Court in their entirety based on her observation of his testimony and demeanor on direct and cross-examination. While the court noted that the newly discovered evidence contradicted some of Hueston's previous statements, it held that Hueston's representations were not deliberately misleading and that the newly discovered evidence was not legally sufficient to warrant disqualification in this instance.
On February 13, 2003, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) and Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant filed objections to the January 28 th Order with this Court. On February 18, 2003, plaintiff's counsel filed papers opposing that motion.

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 162 Filed 08/27/2003 Page 9 of 25
- 9-
DISCUSSION
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) and Rule 72 (a)ll of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court may overturn a
magistrate's order on a non-dispositive matter when such order is
"found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law." See also
European Community v. RJR Nabisco, 134 F. Supp. 2d 297, 302 n.S
(E.D.N.Y. 2001); Weeks Stevedoring Co., Inc. v. Raymond Intern.
Builders, Inc., 174 F.R.D. 301, 303 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). Dispositive rulings, however, are reviewed by the district court de novo. Y
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (referring to dispositive motions as
those "dispositive of a claim or defense of a party"). Motions
for disqualification of counsel are non-dispositive and are thus
subject to the more deferential clear-error standard of Rule
21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), which is designed to implement the legislative mandate of § 636 (b) (1), and states in pertinent part:
A magistrate judge to whom a pretrial matter not dispositive of a claim or defense of a party is referred to hear and determine shall promptly conduct such proceedings as are required and when appropriate enter into the record a written order setting forth the disposition of the matter ... the district judge to whom the case is assigned shall consider such objections and shall modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate judge's order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Fed R. Civ. P. 72(a); see Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, 12 Federal Practice and Procedure § 3608 (2d ed. 1997).
In its memorandum in support of the objections, counsel for defendant, citing § 636(b) (1), urges this Court to make a de novo review of those portions of the order to which objections are made. However, § 636(b) (1) only authorizes de novo review with respect to reports, specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and not to orders. See European Community, 134 F. Supp. 2d at 302 (holding that Rule 72 is not applicable to reports and recommendations of magistrate and that such matters are reviewed de novo); see a~so De~co Wire & Cab~e, Inc. v. Weinberger, 109 F.R.D. 680, 685 (E.D. Pa. 1986); 12 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Richard L. Marcus, Federa~ Practice and Procedure § 3069, at 355-56 (2d ed. 1997).

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 162 Filed 08/27/2003 Page 10 of 25
- 10 72(a). See European Community, 134 F. Supp. 2d at 302 n.5; Weeks, 174 F.R.D. at 303. "[A] finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. United States Gypsum, 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). It well settled that, when reviewing objections to disqualification motions under § 636 (b) (1) and/or Rule 72(a), the clear error standard dictates that the magistrate's decision be afforded broad deference; thus, this Court is not warranted to simply substitute its judgment for that of a magistrate judge. See Gucci America, Inc. v. ExcIusive Imports Int'I, 2001 WL 21253 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2001); Weeks, 174 F.R.D. at 303; Com-Tech Assocs. v. Computer Assocs. Int'I, Inc., 753 F. Supp. 1078, 1099 (E.D.N.Y. 1991), a££'d, 938 F.2d 1574 (2d Cir. 1991). Under this standard, a heavy burden on the moving party is imposed. See ~tcheII v. Century 21 Rustic ReaIty, 233 F. Supp. 2d 418,430 (E.D.N.Y. 2002); McGrath v. Nassau County HeaIth Care CoIp., 204 F.R.D. 240, 243 (E.D.N.Y. 2001); Mathias v. Jacobs, 167 F. Supp. 2d 606, 621-23 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
Here, the City objects to the January 28th Order on the three groundS: (1) the Court's interpretation of Disciplinary Rule 9-101(b) of the American Bar Association Code of Professional Responsibility was overly broad; (2) the Court's findings that ~son, KeIIner and the present case do not represent the same matter and that Hueston did not personally and substantially participate in these matters are clearly erroneous; and (3) the Court applied the wrong legal standard because it

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 162 Filed 08/27/2003 Page 11 of 25
- 11 required conclusive proof that Hueston had received privileged and confidential information.
Interpretation of Disciplinary Rule 9-101(b) The Second Circuit has cautioned that motions to disqualify are not to be granted indiscriminately because they interfere with a party's right to freely choose counsel and may be interposed solely for tactical reasons. See M2tche~~ v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 2002 WL 441194, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (citing Board of Educ. v. Nyquist, 590 F.2d 1241, 1246 (2d Cir. 1979); Government of India v. Cook Indus., 569 F.2d 737, 739 (2d Cir. 1978». In fact, Courts have noted that motions to disqualify are "generally viewed with disfavor in this Circuit." See Witorsch v. Notaris, 1997 WL 529016, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (quoting Marsha~~ v. State of New York Vivo of State Po~ice, 952 F. Supp. 103, 106 (N.D.N.Y. 1997»; see a~so Huntington v. Great Western Resources, Inc., 655 F. Supp. 565, 571 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (noting that in disqualification decisions the Second Circuit has directed district courts to take a "restrained approach that focuses primarily on preserving the integrity of the trial process") (citations omitted). Thus, the moving party must meet a high standard of proof before a lawyer is disqualified. See Evans v. Artek Sys. Corp., 715 F.2d 788,791 (2d Cir. 1983); Gov't of India, 569 F.2d at 739; Bennett Si~vershein Assocs. v. Fur.man, 776 F. Supp. 800, 802 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). Any doubts, however, should be resolved in favor of disqualification. Hu~~ v. Ce~anese Corp., 513 F.2d 568, 571 (2d Cir. 1975).

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 162 Filed 08/27/2003 Page 12 of 25
- 12 In considering a motion for disqualification, courts in this Circuit traditionally refer to the American Bar Association Code of Professional Responsibility (the "Code"), which defines the ethical gUidelines for members of the bar. See Cheng v. GAF Corp., 631 F.2d 1052, 1054 (2d Cir. 1980); ~tche~~, 2002 WL 441194, at *3; Int'~ Union, United Auto., Aerospace and Agric. Imp~ement Workers of Am. (UAW) v. Nat'~ Caucus of Labor Comm., 466 F. SUpp. 564, 566 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). Canon 9 of the Code provides that "[al lawyer should avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Disciplinary Rule 9-101(B) and Ethical Consideration 9-3 address the appearance of impropriety insofar as it relates to former government employees. See Int'~ Union, 466 F. SUpp. at 566. Disciplinary Rule 9-101(B) provides that: "a lawyer shall not accept private employment in a matter in which he had substantial responsibility while he was a public employee." Similarly Ethical Consideration 9-3 states that "[alfter a lawyer leaves judicial office or other public employment he should not accept employment in connection with any matter in which he had a substantial responsibility prior to his leaving, since to accept employment would give the appearance of impropriety even if none exists." Thus, under the disciplinary rules as applied in this Circuit, former government attorneys have been found to have engaged in improper conduct if they represent a party (1) adverse to a former client, (2) in a matter that is substantially related to their prior representation of the movant, and (3) in which they participated personally and

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 162 Filed 08/27/2003 Page 13 of 25
- 13 substantially while in government service. See Evans v. Artek Sys. Corp., 715 F.2d 788,791 (2d Cir. 1983); Int'~ Union, 466 F. Supp. at 569; Ab v. Kaymr, Inc., 1991 WL 246465, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. 1991); United States Footba~~ League v. Nationa~ Footba~~ League, 605 F. Supp. 1448, 1452 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).
In Internationa~ Union, 466 F. Supp. 564 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) (citations omitted), after an extensive survey of Second Circuit precedent, the court adopted the language of the American Bar Association's Committee on Professional Ethics and defined a matter as "a discrete and isolatable transaction or set of transactions between identifiable parties," which involves a "particular situation and specific parties." Id. at 558. Following Internationa~ Union, i t has become well established in the Second Circuit that disqualification of a lawyer or law firm on the basis of prior representation of an adverse party requires a showing of a "substantial relationship" between the subject matter of the prior representation and the issues in the present litigation. See Evans, 715 F.2d at 791; Red Ba~~ Interior Demo~ition Corp. v. Pa~dessa, 908 F. Supp. 1226, 1239 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). In determining whether a matter is substantially related to one which was previously litigated by counsel, the Second Circuit has held that the most important consideration is "not whether the two actions rely for their foundation upon the same section of law, but whether the facts necessary to support the two claims are sufficiently similar." Genera~ Motors Corp. v. City of New York, 501. F.2d 639, 651 n.22 (2d Cir. 1974)

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 162 Filed 08/27/2003 Page 14 of 25
- 14 (upholding disqualification of attorney who had previously represented the United States in an antitrust suit alleging the monopolization or attempted monopolization of the nationwide market for the sale of buses from representing the City of New York in an antitrust action where "virtually every overt act of attempted monopolization alleged in the City's complaint is lifted in haec verba from the Justice Department complaint") ,see also Gov't of India, 569 F.2d at 739-740 (holding that allegations of fraud were substantially related because both were premised on the allegedly fraudulent loading procedures of defendant, which was "[t]he very same information" necessary to a determination of the claim in the instant case). This rule has it basis in policy considerations noted in United States v. Escobar, 910 F. Supp. 92, 97 (E.D.N.Y. 1995), namely, that a court must preserve the delicate balance between the need to encourage attorneys to practice in the service of the government and to specialize in particular fields of law on the one hand and the government's right to safeguard confidential information and the need to discourage government attorneys from handling government matters with an eye toward their own future private employment on the other. In interpreting these precedents and policy considerations district courts have, in general, only granted disqualification motions where the facts giving rise to an issue that is material in both the former and present litigations are the same and must necessarily be considered in order to reach a decision in the present litigation. See

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 162 Filed 08/27/2003 Page 15 of 25
- 15 ~tche22, 2002 WL 441194, at *4 (citing United states Footba22
League, 605 F. Supp. at 1459); Rega2 Marketing Inc. v. Sonny &
Sons Produce Corp., 2002 WL 1788026, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (same); Chichin2nisky v. Trustees of Co2umbia Univ., 1993 WL 403972, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (same); Kamyr, 1991 WL 246465, at *4 (same).
In the present case, Magistrate Judge Pollak applied the substantial relation test and determined that strip searches conducted by NYPD officers at the BCB were not substantially related to the Manhattan and Queens strip-search cases because these litigations concern different City agencies -- the DOC (past litigation) and the NYPD (present litigation) -- that are independent of each other and different policies -- a written DOC directive an unwritten NYPD directive. See Spinner v. The City of New York, No. CV-Ol-2715, slip op. at 18 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (hereinafter "Pollak Op."). Thus, because the factual circumstances that gave rise to the constitutional claims were different, Magistrate Judge Pollak found that the material facts giving rise to the Manhattan and Queens litigations would not be necessary in order for plaintiffs to establish their claims in the present litigation. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Pollak denied the motion to disqualify.
In its present motion, defendant does not dispute that the facts giving rise to the present claims and those forming the basis of the prior litigation are different. However, defendant contends that Magistrate Judge Pollak's order was clearly

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 162 Filed 08/27/2003 Page 16 of 25
- 16 erroneous because it ignored the fact that the same legal issue, the violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of misdemeanor arrestees with the knowledge and acquiescence of high ranking City officials, was the basis for claims in both the past and present litigation; that many of the parties named in TYson and Ke~~ner are named in the present case; and that Magistrate Judge Pollak, in denying the motion to disqualify, relied heavily on the plaintiffs' decision to base their complaint on a different sub-theory of liability than was at issue in the Manhattan and Queens litigations. Based on these assertions, defendant argues that both the facts and issues required to prove a constitutional violation both in the past and present cases are substantially related. (See Def.'s Mem. in Supp. at 9.)
Defendant's argument ignores the well settled principle discussed above that "it is the congruence of factual matters, rather than areas of law which establishes a substantial relationship for disqualification purposes." See United States Footba~~ League, 605 F. Supp. at 1460 n.26 (citing E~e Indus., Inc. v. Patentex, Inc. 478 F.2d 562, 571-72 (2d Cir. 1973». These precedents assume that named parties were represented by the same counsel and instead direct a court considering a motion to disqualify to examine whether or not facts material to the prior litigation will be necessary to render a decision in the present litigation. See id. By conceding that the material facts and circumstances necessary to a determination in the present litigation are different from those germane to the prior

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 162 Filed 08/27/2003 Page 17 of 25
- 17 litigation and instead relying on the overlap of issues and parties in the present litigation, defendant essentially concedes that its argument lacks merit.
In fact, far from supporting its present position, the cases relied on by defendant adhere to the general principle that disqualification motions should not be granted absent factual congruence. In one case cited favorably by defendant, United States v. Uzzi, 549 F. Supp. 979, 982 (S.D.N.Y. 1982), the court held that an investigation conducted by the United States Attorney was substantially related to a subsequent prosecution based on this investigation because "the prosecution arose directly out of that investigation."g/ In contrast, here it is undisputed that the facts and circumstances giving rise to the present action while similar are clearly not congruent to those material to ~son and Ke22ner.
Because Magistrate Judge Pollak applied the proper legal standard to determine whether the present litigation was substantially related to the Manhattan and Queens litigation and because it is undisputed that the present litigation concerns different city agencies, personnel, and policies than the prior litigation, this Court cannot state with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Pollak's decision that the two matters are not
Defendant also relies on LaSa~~e Nationa~ Bank v. County of Lake, 703 F.2d 252, 254 (7th Cir. 1983), where the court upheld disqualification based on the undisputed fact that an attorney had access to specific sewer agreements that would be relevant in the pending litigation.

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 162 Filed 08/27/2003 Page 18 of 25
- 18 substantially related within the meaning of Disciplinary Rule 9101(B) is affirmed.
Hueston's Testimony Defendant next challenges Magistrate Judge Pollak's findings that (1) the strip-search litigations are not the same matter, and (2) Hueston did not personally and substantially participate in the Manhattan and Queens strip-search litigations, arguing that they are clearly erroneous because they are based in part on Hueston's contradictory statements. While defendant claims that Magistrate Judge Pollak based her finding that the Manhattan and Queens litigations do not represent the same matter as the present litigation on Hueston's testimony, an analysis of the January 28th Order reveals that she relied on the allegations in the complaint in making this determination. (See Pollak Op. at 18-19.) Defendant claims that Magistrate Judge Pollak made this determination based upon Hueston's subsequently contradicted statements that he did not represent Kerik, treat Ke~~ner as a ~son opt-out case, correspond with Kerlin regarding ~son and the possibility that Ke~~ner might represent a ~son opt-out case, or meet with Police Officers Cosaluzzo and Bellomo or Warden Alonzo Davis. With the exception of the Davis and Bellomo meetings, Hueston does not dispute the validity of defendant's assertions. Nevertheless, despite Hueston's misstatements, it is apparent that Magistrate Judge Pollak based her decision on the lack of factual congruence between the material facts giving rise to the present litigation

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 162 Filed 08/27/2003 Page 19 of 25
- 19 -
and those giving rise to the prior litigation. In the January
28th Order, Magistrate Judge Pollak explicitly stated:
"Nothing in the information presently presented to the Court alters the fact that Mr. Hueston did not represent the City in the ~son class action litigation. Even if the Ke~~ner case had been a ~son opt-out and had raised the same issues as ~son, that does not change the fact that both cases are very different from the ones currently pending before this Court. Different City agencies and personnel were responsible for the strip search policy being challenged in Queens and Manhattan and now under challenge in Brooklyn. The DOC, which ran the Queens and Manhattan facilities, played no role in Brooklyn, nor did it exert authority over the NYPD, the City agency alleged now to be responsible for strip-searching misdemeanor arrestees in Brooklyn. Finally ... the claims raised in ~son were focused on a written DOC directive that was promulgated just to cover Manhattan and Queens, while the current litigation alleges an unwritten practice of routinely conducting strip-searches in Brooklyn."
Therefore, it is apparent that Magistrate Judge
Pollak's decision that the two matters were not substantially
related was based on an analysis of the congruence between the
material facts at issue in the past and present litigations and
not in any way on the contradicted testimony of Hueston.
Accordingly, as stated above, this decision was not clearly
erroneous.
Exposure to Confidential & Privileged Information
Defendant also argues that Magistrate Judge Pollak's
finding that Hueston was not exposed to privileged and
confidential information concerning ~son was clearly erroneous
because it was based in part upon Hueston's contradicted
testimony. Such reliance, defendant maintains, thwarts the
purpose of the disqualification rule, which is to preserve the

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 162 Filed 08/27/2003 Page 20 of 25
- 20 public trust in the administration of justice and the integrity of the bar by safeguarding the confidences and secrets of clients.
In United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980), the Supreme Court held that in reviewing objections to the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge concerning the credibility of witnesses, a court need not undertake a de novo review of such testimony but may, instead, afford a degree of deference to the credibility determination of the magistrate. The Second Circuit has similarly held that district judge reviewing the credibility determinations of a magistrate may defer to the judgment of the magistrate because of the magistrate's superior ability as the primary factfinder to observe witnesses and their demeanor. See United States v. Tay~or, 92 F.3d 1313, 1327 (2d Cir. 1996); United States v. Griffiths, 845 F. Supp. 105, 107 (W.D.N.Y. 1994). Other circuits have held that a magistrate's credibility determinations are entitled to substantial deference and should rarely be modified or set aside. See United States. v. Ramirez-Chi~e~, 289 F.3d 744, 749 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding that magistrate's findings concerning credibility should only be set aside if it appears that the judge's understanding of the facts is "unbelievable"); United States v. Bree~and, 53 F.3d 100, 103 (5th Cir. 1995) (finding that clear error review is "especially rigorous" when applied to the credibility determinations because the magistrate has seen and judged the witnesses firsthand and thus those

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 162 Filed 08/27/2003 Page 21 of 25
- 21 determinations are entitled to "due deference"); United States v. McDowel.l., 21 F.3d 429, 429 (6th Cir. 1994) (holding that "great deference" is to be accorded to the credibility determinations of magistrates). Nevertheless, a district court may choose to reject the findings of the magistrate and conduct an evidentiary hearing in order to determine the credibility of the witnesses if it is left with a definite and firm conviction that the credibility determinations of the magistrate are inaccurate. See Raddatz, 447 U.S. at 676; Tayl.or, 92 F.3d at 1327; see al.so Hil.l. v. Beyer, 62 F.3d 474, 481 (3d Cir. 1995) ("[aJ district court may either accept the recommendation of a magistrate judge or reject the recommendation and reach an independent conclusion after hearing testimony and viewing witnesses") .
Here, Magistrate Judge Pollak placed Hueston under oath and observed his demeanor throughout two days of testimony.'o/ Because Hueston denied receiving any privileged or confidential information and because defendant offered no conclusive evidence linking Hueston to such information, Magistrate Judge Pollak decided to credit Hueston's testimony in its entirety. In this situation, where Hueston's credibility has been tested and Magistrate Judge Pollak considered all of defendant's "newly discovered" evidence, deference to the findings of the magistrate is proper. This Court is not left with the definite and firm
10/ Despite defendant's contrary arguments, it is clear from Magistrate Judge Pollak's order that she based her decision on her observation of defendant at the September 6 th and 20th bearings and not on his previous statements. (See Pollak Op. at 17.)

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 162 Filed 08/27/2003 Page 22 of 25
- 22 conviction that the original factfinder has committed an error. See Raddatz, 447 U.S. at 676; TayIor, 92 F.3d at 1327; Griffiths, 845 F. Supp. at 107 Moreover, deference here is also appropriate in light of the legislative purpose of § 636(b) (1) and Rule 72(a), which was to alleviate the increasing congestion of litigation in the district courts. See Raddatz, 447 U.S. at 676 n.3 (reasoning that liberally revisiting credibility determinations of the magistrate judge would defeat the legislative purpose of § 636 (b) (1) ) .
Conclusive Proof of Exposure Finally, defendant argues that Magistrate Judge Pollak's ruling is contrary to law because it would require defendant to produce "conclusive proof" that Hueston received privileged and confidential information concerning the Manhattan and Queens litigations while he was employed by the SFLD. Defendant maintains that a party moving for disqualification on successive representation grounds need not show that counsel actually obtained privileged and confidential information; rather, the moving party need only show that the attorney would have had access to the relevant information by virtue of his involvement in the prior case. Here again, defendant's argument ignores the conjunctive relationship of the applicable three-prong disqualification test that has been noted both by this Court and by Magistrate Judge Pollak in both her May 20th and January 28th Orders. It is well established in the Second Circuit that "the

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 162 Filed 08/27/2003 Page 23 of 25
- 23 substantial relationship test does not exist for its own sake. Rather it serves as a substitute for proof that it is generally improper for a Court to entertain." U.S. Footba~~ League, 605 F. Supp. at 1461 (citing inter a~ia Cheng, 631 F.2d at 1056; E~e, 478 F.2d at 571; T.C. Theatre, 113 F. Supp. at 268, 269». Thus, where the movant has established a substantial relationship between the past and present litigation, the Court must presume that confidences and privileged information were disclosed during the prior representation. See Peacock Ho~dings, Inc. v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 1996 WL 285435, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) (citing A2~egaert v. Perot, 565 F.2d 246,250 (2d Cir. 1977); T.C. Theatre COIp., 113 F. Supp. at 268). Having failed to establish a substantial relationship between the past and present litigation, defendant was not entitled to a presumption that Hueston had access to privileged and confidential information. See id.
In this Circuit it is well settled that the presumption of access to privileged information that arises after the movant has established that the existence of a substantial relationship is rebuttable. See Cheng, 631 F.2d at 1056; Si~ver Chrys~er P~ymouth, Inc. v. Chrys~er Motors COIp., 518 F.2d 751, 754 (2d Cir. 1975); Laskey Bros. of W. Va., Inc. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, 224 F.2d 824,827 (2d Cir. 1955); Huntington v. Great Western Resources, Inc., 655 F. Supp. 565, 572 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); U.S. Footba~~ League, 605 F. Supp. at 1462 n.28; Int'~ Union (UAW) , 466 F. Supp. at 571; see a~so Gov't of India, 569 F.2d at

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 162 Filed 08/27/2003 Page 24 of 25
- 24 741 (Mansfield, J. concurring). The Second Circuit has recognized the incongruity of making a presumption rebuttable and then making the standard of proof for rebuttal unattainably high and has held that an attorney may rebut the presumption through testimony and/or affidavits. See Si~ver Chrys~er-P~y.mouth, 518 F.2d. at 751; Laskey, 224 F.2d at 827. If a court credits the testimony or affidavits of counsel, the presumption is rebutted, and the court may deny the motion for disqualification or examine other supporting evidence offered by the movant. See id.; Huntington, 655 F. Supp. at 572; see a~so Gov't of India, 569 F.2d at 741 (Mansfield, J. concurring).
In this case Magistrate Judge Pollak credited Hueston's testimony after thoroughly examining defendant's "newly discovered" evidence and allowing defendant to cross-examine Hueston. Not only did she properly grant Hueston an opportunity to rebut defendant's claims, she also allowed defendant to challenge this rebuttal. Because Magistrate Judge Pollak applied the appropriate legal standard in determining whether Hueston actually or was likely to have had access to privileged and confidential information and because this Court is not left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made, it cannot be said that Magistrate Judge Pollak's decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, defendant's motion on this ground is denied.

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 162 Filed 08/27/2003 Page 25 of 25

- 25 -

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the decision of

Magistrate Judge Pollak is affirmed.

The Clerk is directed to furnish a filed copy of the

within to all parties and to the magistrate judge.

SO ORDERED.

Dated

Brooklyn, New York August ~~, 2003

Judge

 
 Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 174 Filed 10/10/2003 Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------x
Michae1 Spinner et alia,

FILED
-IN ClEBKS OFflOE
C.S. DISTRICTU""- -~ N.Y,
* * ocr 1 0 2003
-===== T!ME pA.M.M.._

Plaintiffs,

CV-01-271S (CPS)

against City of New York et alia,

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Defendants.
----------------------------------------x

SIFTON, Senior JUdge.

In these consolidated actions, p1aintiffs assert c1aims

on beha1f of themse1ves and others s~i1ar1y situated against
,
defendant municipa1ity and municipa1 officia1s. Present1yi before
,
the Court is p1aintiffs' motion for class certification and for a

pre1iminary injunction. !I For the reasons set forth below,

plaintiffs' motion for c1ass certification is granted. Y

BACKGROUND

The fo11owing facts are undisputed except where noted.
~~nnL.~t' ~n They are taken from the submissions of the parties in ~~ ~~ ~~

with the present motion.

!I

aOtiO~ Plaintiffs have wl.thdr"Nn their "otio" to consolidate this

with

three othar actions ral.Sl.ng similar claims (Hab=ut v. Cl.ty of New York, ,02 CV

103~; Knopke v. City of New York, 01 CV S264, and MicciuJ.J.l. v. City oe New Zorl<,

02 CV 2S99). in light of a compromHe reached with defendants on the ter.ls of a

ccnsolidated complaint. Plal.nhffs request leave to file the amended complaint.

Since there is no obJection from defendants, leave to file the consolidat:'9d

coml?laint is granted.

!

gl

Plaintiffs also moved prematurely for a prehml.nary injunction o~ -behalf

of the class they were not then certified to represent. As discussed at bral

argument, that motion is deni8d without prejUdice to its "anewal on notide now

that named plaintiffS are certified to represent the class.

I

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 174 Filed 10/10/2003 Page 2 of 16

-,-

This is a putative class action challenging conditions

of detention and confinement at the New York City Police

Department's Brooklyn Central Booking Facility ("Central

Booking") . Plaintiffs claim that for the three years preceding

the commencement of this action and continuing through to the

present, defendants have carried out a policy or practice of

systematically strip searching all pretrial detainees at Central

Booking, whether Or not there exists any reasonable suspicion

that the detainees were concealing weapons or other contraband.

Plaintiffs also challenge what they allege to be unsafe,

inhumane, and unsanitary conditions at Central Booking.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, declaratory

and injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983.

follows:

Plaintiffs, in their papers, defined the class as

[A]ll persons who since 1998: (1) have been charged with miSdemeanors or non-criminal offenses in Kings County; (2) who were detained at Brooklyn Central Booking; and (3) who were subjected to defendants' policy, practice and custom of strip searching arrestees (a) without reasonable suspicion that the arrestee is concealing a weapon or other contraband, and/or (b) in the presence of onlOOkers or members of the opposite sex.

(Consolidated Comp1. :l[ 1.) At oral argW1lE!nt on questioning of

plaintiffs' counsel by the Court, th class was redefined as

follows:

THE COURT: ... Now, you're saying everyone who went through central booking who was there because of having committed a misdemeanor or a non-criminal offense and

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 174 Filed 10/10/2003 Page 3 of 16
-3-
who was strip searched is within this class because the defendants at this time, you say, had a policy, practice and custom of searching people whether or not they had a reasonable suspicion, whether Or not they had probable cause to search them.
MR. ISSEKS; Yes, your Honor.
MR. CARDINALE: Yes, that's the class.
(Tr. Feb. 6, 2003, at 6-7.)
Plaintiffs consist of twenty named representatives and
two plaintiffs proceeding individually but not representatively
who claim to have been strip searched at Central Booking after
being arrested for misdemeanors and before arraignment.
Defendants, having deposed the named plaintiffs, argue that some
plaintiffs may have been arrested on felonies, that the searches
in question were not a~~ "strip searches," Plaintiffs seek an
injunction barring improper strip searches at Central Booking as
well as compensatory and punitive damages,V
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) sets forth the
requirements for class certification:
One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impraoticable, (2) there are questions of law cr fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative
~he named plaintiffs have also chall"ng"d th" condition~ at Central Booking, claim~ng the,>, are inhumane. unsanitary, and unsafe and ~eek compensator,>,
and punitive damages (or b"~ng sIlbjected to th"Be conditions on theH own behal(
but not apparently on behd( o( the class as now defined. Plaintiffs have withd~awn thei.~ ~equest for an injunction ""garding conditions st Central Booking ~n light o( the faot \;hat a consent decree concerning those oonditions was ente"ed in the case of Grubbs v. Safir, No. n-CV-2132 (S.O.N.l:.) (Chin, J.), and has not ,>,et expir"d.

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 174 Filed 10/10/2003 Page 4 of 16

- 4-

parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

In addition, for a class action to be maintainable, it must

satisfy one of the subsections of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

23 (b) . Rule 23(b) (2) provides that a class action is

maintainable if "the party opposing the class has acted or

refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class,

thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or

corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a

whole." Rule 23{b) (3) provides that a class action is

maintainable if the Court finds "that the questions of law or

fact common to the members of the class predominate Over any

questions affecting only individual members, and that a class

action is superior to other available methods for the fair and

efficient adjudication of the controversy."

The burden of establishing the criteria for class

certification is on the party seeking certification. Caridad v.

Metro-North Commuter R.R., 191 F.3d 283, 291 (2d Cir. 1999); In

re Industria~ Diamonds Antitrust Litigation, 167 F.R.D. 374, 378

(S.D.N.Y. 1996). "In determining the prcpriety of a class

action, the question is not whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs

have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but

rather whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met." In re Visa

Check/Master MOney Antitrust Litigation, 280 F.3d 124, 133 (2d

Cir. 2001) (quoting Eisen v. Car2isle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156,

178 (1974»

In deciding a motion for class certification, the

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 174 Filed 10/10/2003 Page 5 of 16
- 5Court must treat all of the allegations of the complaint as true. Pecere v. ~ire Blue Cross and Blue Shield, 194 F.R.D. 66 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) (citing Eisen, 417 U.S. at 178). Class certificaticn shou1d be granted if the court "is satisfied after a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites of Ru1e 23(a) have been satisfied." GeneraL TeLephone Co. v. FaLcon, 457 U.S. 157, 161 (1982). Whi1e c1ass certification may be resolved on the p1eadings, at times it is necessary to "probe behind the pleadings before coming to rest on the certification question." Id. at 160. In the Second Circuit, "Rule 23 is given 1iberal
rather than restrictive construction, and courts are to adopt a standard of flexibility" in deciding whether to grant certification. Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 126 F.3d 372, 377 (2d Cir. 1997) (citing Sharif ex reI. SaLahuddin v. New York state Educ. Dep't, 127 F.R.D. 84, 87 (S.D.N.Y. 1989»
Rule 231a) Criteria "Courts have not required evidence of exact class size or identity of class members to satisfy the numerosity requirement." Robidoux v. Celani, 987 F.2d 931, 935 (2d Cir. 1993) . However, "e1"sses of approximately thirty-five to seventy persons have been certified by courts in the Second Circuit." Dubin v. E.F. Hutton Gro~, Inc., 1990 WL 105757, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.) (collecting cases). In support of their contention that the e1ass is numerous enough to satisfy Ru1e 23(a), plaintiffs point out that there are twenty named representatives who whi1e they were in detention, observed numerous other

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 174 Filed 10/10/2003 Page 6 of 16
-, -
individuals being subjected to the same treatment that forms a basis for their claims and infer that defendants had a blanket policy of strip searching detainees at Central Booking without regard to the reasonable suspicion requirement. These facts and inferences taken together with the large number of arrestees who pass through Central Booking, they argue, satisfy the numerosity requirement. fl Defendants argue that the pleadings and
depositions in this case do not support the existence of a class, since even the named plaintiffs were not all "strip searched" under the usual definition of the term,§! and that their
testimony establishes that there was no "pattern" of strip searches at Central Booking.
Defendants' argument essentially asks me to decide the merits of plaintiffs' claims, which is not appropriate at this stage. See Eisen, 417 U.S. at 178. Plaintiffs have clearly produced evidence sufficient to form the basis for an inference
that a policy, practice, or custom existed with respect to strip searches at Central Booking similar to that which plaintiffs describe. Although each of the searches at issue in this litigation may not fit the definition cited by defendants, that
Plaintiffs also arllUe that there is an 1nd1Sputably hrge number of detain..es who hav.. been processed at Central Book~ng, and all have b ....n subject to the allegedly deplorable conditions there; so, the numerosity requirement should be held satisfied on this ground. llowever, plaintiffs' proposed olass definition is not basad on potential olass members' d..tgntion at Central Booking; ~t u based On the allegedly unoonstitutional "trip searches performed there. The number of detainees who have passed through Central Booking has no bearing on the numerosity of pla~ntiffs' proposed olass.
In common usage, a "st>::!.p sea>:ch" involv..s the removal of all clothing and is usually acco",!>an:!.ed .by vi5ual inspection of the body <oavi ti..s. See, e.g.,
Wsber v. DeLI, S04 F.2d 796, 799 (2d Cir. 1986).

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 174 Filed 10/10/2003 Page 7 of 16
- 7may we12 be because a centra1 po1icy was carried out in a variety of different ways in different cases. Moreover, a22 of the searches comp1ained of appear to imp1icate rights under the Fourth and/or Fourteenth Amendments. See Poe v. Leonard, 282 F.3d 123, 138-139 (2d Cir. 2002) ("[Tlhere is a right to privacy in one's unc10thed or par~ia~Ly unc20thed body, regard1ess whether that right is estab1ished through the auspices of the Fourth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment." (emphasis added» Based on the named p1aintiffs' experiences, which I accept as true at this stage of the 1itigation, as we11 as their a11eged observations of others being searched at Central Booking, I conc1ude that there exists sufficient1y numerous c2ass and that joinder of c1ass members would be impracticab1e.
Commonality requires that c1ass members' claims share a common question of 1aw or fact. Robinson v. Me~ro-Nor~h Cammu~er R.R. Co., 267 F.3d 147, 155 (2d Cir. 2001). Whereas here "injuries derive from a unitary course of conduct by a single system," a district court is within its discretion in finding commona1ity. Mariso2 A. v. Giu2iani, 126 F.3d 372, 377 (2d Cir. 1997) . Plaintiffs have a1leged that defendants have a general policy of performing strip searches of detainees at Central Booking without regard to probable cause or reasonable suspicion. fl Recovery by the class wi11 depend on plaintiffs'
As noted, although plaintiffs also raise claims for damages arising from their detentl.on under anegedly deplorable conditions at Central Booking, s .... supra at. 3-4, these claintS a~e neithe~ asserted as a b"si~ fa" olass-wid.. relief nor intplica.ted in the proposed class definl.tion. As such, they will not be
(continued ... >

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 174 Filed 10/10/2003 Page 8 of 16

- Bability to prove this fact. Courts in this Circuit have previously held such an allegation to satisfy the commonality requirement. See, e.g., Dodge v. County of Orange 208 F.R.D. 79, 88-89 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (finding commonality in a putative class action challenging an alleged blanket strip-search policy); Manee2y v. City of Newburgh, 208 F.R.D. 69, 74-75 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (sarne) . Defendants' objections to commonality hinge on their contention that plaintiffs have not proven that a strip-search policy existed at Central Booking, as illustrated by varying accounts of searches given by plaintiffs themselves. While this certainly may be relevant to plaintiffs' ability to prove their class-wide claims, it is not an appropriate inquiry at this stage of the litigation. Defendants' argument that plaintiffs' claims are not susceptible to class-wide proof because they are dependent on an inquiry of the circumstances of each search similarly ignores plaintiffs' allegation, which I accept as true for purposes of this motion, that a policy existed at Central Booking of strip searching misdemeanor detainees. For these reasons, I find that defendants have satisfied the commonality requirement.
"Typicality requires that the claims of the class representatives be typical of those of the class, and is satisfied when each olass member's claim arises from the sarne course of events, and each class member makes similar legal

y

( ... continued)

cOMi<iered in disposing of the prQsQnt motion or in the resolution of the ",laM-

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 174 Filed 10/10/2003 Page 9 of 16
- 9arguments to prove the defendant 1 s liability. H Robinson, 267 F.3d at 155 (internal quotation marks omitted). The typicality requirement "has been found to be satisfied when the claims of the representatives and other class members are based on the same legal or remedial theory and there are no antagonistic interests between the two groups." In re Medica~ X-Ray Film Antitrust:
Lit:igat:ion, at *3 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Alcoholic Beverages Litigat:ion, 95 F.R.D. 321, 324 (E.D.N.Y. 1982» . Here, despite the differing oiroumstanoes of plaintiffs' arrests, their class-wide claim rises and falls on their ability to prove a polioy of strip searohes at Central Booking, in violation of the legal requirements that a determination of reasonable suspicion be made prior to suoh a search. Defendants argue that a finding of liability would require fact-specifio inquiries into the search of each defendant; however it is defendants' alleged policy of indiscriminate strip searches, not the alleged unconstitutionality of eaoh individual search, that is at issue in plaintiffs' claims. Accordingly, I find plaintiffs' claims typical of those of absent class members.
The final requirement of Rule 23(a) is adequacy of representation. This requirement oonsists of two elements: (1) the representative plaintiffs' attorneys must be qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the litigation, and (2) the plaintiffs' interests must not be antagonistic to those of the remainder of the class. In re Drexel Burnham Lambert:

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 174 Filed 10/10/2003 Page 10 of 16
10Group, Inc., 960 F.2d 285, 291 (2d Cir. 1992). Defendants raise objections on both these prongs.
First, defendants claim that plaintiffs lack the oredibility, character, and familiarity with the facts of the case to adequately represent the class. In determining whether a plaint.iff is an adequate class representative, "[tJhe inquiry into the representatives' personal qualities is not an examination into their moral righteousness, but rather an inquiry directed at improper or questionable conduct arising out of or touching upon the very prosecution of the lawsuit." Jane B. by Martin v. New York City Dep't of Soc, Servs., 117 F.R.D. 64, 71 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). Since this action alleges claims on behalf of misdemeanor arrestees, it cannot be expected that class members or their representatives will be of spotless character. Defendants' attempts to attack the credibility of the plaintiffs based on, for example, their tax-filing practices, reading skills, psychological disabilities, immigration status, and criminal history are not character deficiencies "arising out of or touching upon" the alleged strip-search pclicy at Central Booking. Det'endants challenge plaintiffs Yvonne James and Angie Melicio on grounds that they were initially charged with felonies and may have been so charged at the time of their challenged searches; however, they have not adduced evidence sufficient to lay to rest as a matter cf law plaintiffs' assertion that they were charged with misdemeanors at that time. Defendants' objections to certain plaintiffs' alleged lack of understanding

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 174 Filed 10/10/2003 Page 11 of 16
- 11 of the present action and their role in it based on excerpts from their deposition testimony are contradicted or otherwise undercut by other portions of their depositions in which the Same plaintiffs evince at least a basic layman's understanding of the nature of the harm they have allegedly suffered and a desire for a remedy. Defendant's argument that Anthony Micciulli did not file a notice of claim and may, thus, be subject to a special defense on his state law claims is without merit; this issue does not "threaten to become the focus of litigation" in a way that would make Micciulli an inadequate representative, particularly given the viability of his § 1983 claim. See Gary Plastic Packaging Corp. v. MerriLL Lynch, 903 F.2d 176 (2d Cir. 1990) This is also true of Mohamed Habrout's rejection of a Rule 68 offer of judgment, raised by defendants as a basis for his inadequacy as a class representative. Finally, plaintiffs concede that Alexander Timofeev and Federico Tenorio are not adequate representatives, because they cannot be located. Accordingly, they will not be certified as class representatives. I! I find the remaining proposed class representatives to be adequate under Rule 23{a).
With respect to plaintiffs' counsel, defendants argue that they have committed discovery violations, have potential conflicts of interest, display unfamiliarity with and poor management of the class action device, and have otherwise behaved
The proposed consolidated oo,"plaint lists these two .indl.v.iduals as pla~nhff~, proc....ding "individually" not on behalf of all oth..r,. ~i",ilarly Sl.tua.ted.

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 174 Filed 10/10/2003 Page 12 of 16
- 12 -
inappropriately in this litigation. On May 20, 2002, Magistrate
Judge Pollak denied defendants' motion to disqualify plaintiffs'
counsel on grounds of an alleged conflict of interest; a motion
for reconsideration was denied on January 28, 2002, and Judge
Pollak's ruling was affirmed by this Court on August 20, 2003.
Robert Isseks is class connsel in two similar class actions
challenging alleged strip-search policies in the Southern
District of New York. Defendants do not assert that plaintiffs'
oounsel have been sanctioned or disciplined for any of their
allegedly improper or unethical conduct, and they have long
experience with this case and similar CaSes. Accordingly, I find
them to be qualified to Serve as class counsel for this action.
Based on the foregoing discussion, I find the
requirements of Rule 23(a) satisfied in this case.
Rule 23 (b) Criteria
Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(b) (2) or,
alternatively, 23(b) (3). The Second Circuit has reoently
provided guidance on the maintainability criteria for putative
class actions that seek both damages and injunctive relief.
[Wjhen presented with a motion for (b) (2) class certification of a claim seeking both injunctive relief and non-incidental monetary damages, a district court must consider the evidence presented at a class certification hearing and the arguments of counsel, and then assess whether (b) (2) certification is appropriate in light of the relative importance of the remedies sought, given all of the facts and circumstanoes of the case. The district court may allow (b) (2) certification if it finds in its informed, sound judicial discretion that (1) the positive weight or value to the plaintiffs of the injunctive or declaratory relief sought is predcminant even though compensatory or punitive

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 174 Filed 10/10/2003 Page 13 of 16
- 13 -
damages are also claimed, and (2) class treatment would be efficient and manageable, thereby achieving an appreciable measure of judicial economy.
Although the assessment of whether injunctive or declaratory relief predominates will require an ad hoc balancing that will vary from case to case, before allowing (b) (2) certification a district court should, at a minimum, satisfy itself of the following: (1) even in the absence of a possible monetary recovery, reasonable plaintiffs would bring the suit to obtain the injunctive or declaratory relief sought; and (2) the injunctive or declaratory relief sought would be both reasonably necessary and appropriate were the plaintiffs to succeed on the merits. Insignificant or sham requests for injunctive relief should not provide cover for (b) (2) certification of claims that are brought essentially for monetary recovery.
Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter RR. Co., 267 F. 3d 147, 164 (2d
Cir. 2001). Plaintiffs have produced numerous sworn statements
to the effect that they are pursuing this litigation so injuries
such as those they allegedly suffered will not be inflicted on
others. HOWeVer, they were apparently unaware that a substantial
portion of the injunctive relief they seek had already been
granted by another court and rather nonchalantly dropped their
request for such injunctive relief when made aware of that fact.
There is thus a suspioion that the request for injunctive relief
is merely an afterthought to plaintiffs' claims for damages.
However, considering the two factors set forth in Rabinson, I
believe that a reasonable plaintiff would still bring this action
in the absenoe of any possible monetary recovery, particularly
given the invasiveness of the alleged injuries. Furthermore I
were plaintiffs to succeed on the merits that is, were they to
prove that the alleged policy does exist at Central Booking --

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 174 Filed 10/10/2003 Page 14 of 16
- 14 the injunctive relief they request would be both appropriate and necessary to prevent ongoing or repeated violation of the class' (and any potential future detainees') rights. Accordingly, I find that analysis under Rule 23(b) (2) is appropriate.
"Rule 23 (b) (2) does not require that all plaintiffs be identically situated. What is important is that the relief sought by the named plaintiffs benefit the entire class." In re Methy.l Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE") Products Liability Litigation, 209 F.R.D. 323, 342 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Plaintiffs allege that defendants have a policy of strip searching misdemeanor arrestees at Central Booking without regard to the reasonable suspicion requirement. Such a polioy, if it existed, would be generally applicable to the class, and the requested injunction prohibiting strip searches, barring such searches absent reasonable suspicion, would benefit the entire class.
Defendants objeot that the plaintiffs do not have standing to seek such relief. They cite in support of this argument City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1993). Defendants argue that plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that they are likely to suffer the alleged injuries again in the future and, thus, lack standing to seek injunctive relief. Lyons is distinguishable, however, because in the present case plaintiffs allege that they as a class, rather than as individuals, are likely to suffer future harm and because plaintiffs allege a policy of performing searches without regard to reasonable

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 174 Filed 10/10/2003 Page 15 of 16
- 15 suspicion, rather than a grant of discretion to perform such searches. C£., e.g., Deshawn E. by Char~ol:l:e E. v. Sa£ir, 156 F.3d 340, 344-45 (2d Cir. 1998). In such a case, plaintiffs have standing to seek injunctive relief. Id.
Finally, in a general objection to certification, defendants argue that the proposed class definition as set forth in the moving papers is unworkable because it includes a requirement that class members must have been searched without reasonable suspicion. In making a fact-sensitive element of the claim a prerequisite cf class membership, defendants argue, the Court wonld be required to engage in inquiries on the merits of each potential class member's claim in order to determine their eligibility for inclusion in the class. This argument is not without merit, but it is an artifact of plaintiffs' original class definition (i.e., placing the referenoe to the alleged illegal policy, practice, or custom in the class definition rather than as a separate factual allegation), not evidence that no class exists (as defendants argue). PlaintiffS have modified their proposed class definition at oral argument to eliminate absence of reasonable suspicion as a prerequisite to class membership, see supra at 2. Accordingly, this objection is now moot.
For the foregoing reasons, the following class is certified: All persons who since 1998 (1) have been charged with misdemeanors or non-criminal offenses in Kings County; (2) were as a result detained at Brooklyn Central Booking: and (3) were

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 174 Filed 10/10/2003 Page 16 of 16

- 16 during the detention strip searched at Brooklyn Central Booking

without regard for the existence of probable cause or reasonable

suspicion.

As discussed at oral arguments on this motion, I have

not considered plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

Insofar as the injunctive relief sought herein is sought on

behalf of the class, not on behalf of the named plaintiffs,

adjudication of the motion for class certification was a

condition precedent tc consideration of the motion for a

preliminary injunction. As I advised the parties at oral

arguments, plaintiffs may renew on notice their motion for a

preliminary injunction on behalf of the plaintiff c1ass.V

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, leave to file the propcsed

consolidated complaint is granted on consent. Plaintiffs' motion

for class certification is granted.

The Clerk is directed to furnish a filed copy of the

within to all parties and to the magistrate judge.

Dated:

so OIUlEBED.

y, '. Brooklyn, New York

october

2003

United States Di trict Judge

Accordingl.y, the motion for a p"eli"inary injunotion inoorporated 1nto pl.al.ntiffs· "otion for olass cerhfioahon is denied without prejud1cQ to its renewal.

 
 Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 241 Filed 02/03/2004 Page 1 of 3

CARDINALE HUESTON & MARINELLI

ATTORNEYS ,1' LA\\

2 I) C 0 \' R T :'i T R 12 L '1', S 1TIT E I; 0 0

BHOOKl.YN, NE\\ YOHK 112,t2 (71$) 624-9391
F",~imil<' ( 7 1 $ ) 522 2026

"",~",

RlCha d J l ':udinak
r.,'llchacl Huc~t\lll
1<,1\1<.:r1. ,L I\\01'1n\.'111

The Ilonorable Charles p, Sitton
l.ll1ited State's Courthouse
225 Cadman PlaLa E:ast B!'('oklyn, \,\, 112111

January 10. 2004

,~ CI.F~K:':i (l1=1=10E
Us, ~"', '" "

Re: Spinner \, City or New York, ev I) I 2715 (CPS )(CU' I
Knopkc y, City of New York. CV 013264
Mic:c:iLdi v. City ofNev.' York. CV 02 2R99
Habrout Y. City of New YQrK, CV 02 1039

Your Ilollor:
I write conccming th~ order \0 show cause lssucd on January 7,2003,
Plaintiff3 will withdraw their consolidated cI8" 8c(inl1 complaint. which is the
subject of the order to show cause. As I indicated to the COlirt in 111y letter dated December 31, 1003, (he consolidated class action complaint was interposed solely lor COllve!11CnCe and
pursuam to a rcqHesl by d~rt::I1;::'(': couJlsel. These actions arc alrondy cOI1:)oiidatcd and there is no
le~al requirement that the complaints in consolidated actions be consolidated into a single pleading. IVlorc()\'cr, the Court nl'\'er directed plaintiffs to file a singlc consolidated pleading. Thlls. the plulI1(111s 111 tile aforesaid actions \\ill rely 011 tlie COlllplaillls interposed in their respecti\'e separate (0111plall1ts.
The prop"",,,d ,'nll.",li,ht"d class action complaint \\'ill be formally withdrawn upon receipt of an appropriate stlJlulation by defense counsel.

Respectfull y.

Richard J. Cardinale (RC·8507)

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 241 Filed 02/03/2004 Page 2 of 3

.J.
CARDINALE HUESTON & MARINELLI
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 26 COURT STREET, SUITE 600
BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11242 (718) 624·9391
Facsimile (?lS) 522·2026
Richard 1. Cardinale Michael Hueston Robert J Mannelli

By Hand The Honorable Charles p, Sifton United State~ r,"urthollse 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, N.Y, 11201

December 31, 2003

Re: Spimlcr v. City of New York, CV 01 2715 (CPS)(CLP) Knopke v. City of New York, CV O[ 8264 Miccillli v. CilyofNew York, CV 022899 Habrout v. City of New York, CV 021039

Your Honor:
This office and attorney Robert N, Isseks represent the plaintiffs in the above referenced cases. I write in response to rlefense counsel's lettor of Deccmb"f 31,2003, which, among other things, objects to ~ome of the language in plaintiffs' consolidated class action complaint

First, plaintiffs have always challenged the fact that plaintiffs were strip searched in front of onlookers and/or members of the opposite sex and have always sought class certification on this claim. .see Proposed Consolidated Class Action Complaint, dated January 30, 2003 (Der. Ex. B) at prelim. strut., ~~ 7, 15, 17. Plaintiffs wish (0 pursue this claim at the upcoming trial.

Second, plaintiffs have always challenged the fact that plaintiffs and thousands of other detainees were subjected to unconstitutional conditions in Brooklyn Central Booking and have alway" ROUght class certifioation on this daim, See Proposed Consolidated Class Action Complaint, dated January 30, 2003 (DeE. Ex. B) at prelim. strut., ~~ 7,21-23,25. Plaintiffs wish to reserve their right to class certification on this aspect of their case. In any event, we intend to file a second claGG action very S(JUll which challenges the conditions of Brooklyn Central Booking on behalf of all detainees, felony and misdemeanor, irrespective of whether such detainees were strip searched.
Finally, r wish to point out that the consolidated class action complaint was
interposed for convenience and pursuant to request by the Law Department. These ar.tions are already consolidated and there is no legal requirement that the complaints in consolidated actions be consolidated into a single caption, Moreover, the Court never ordered plaintiff.~ to file a single consolidated pleading,

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 241 Filed 02/03/2004 Page 3 of 3
"

COpy: Alan Scheiner (hy fax)
Magistrate Judge Pollak (by fax)

Respectfully, Richard 1. Cardinale (RC-S507)

2

 
 Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 264 Filed 03/16/2004 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------J(
MICHAEL SPINNER, et aI.,

- against -

Plaintiffs,

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
01 CV 2715 (CPS)

CITY OF NEW YORK, et aI.,

Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------J(

During the course of a conference held before this Court on March 3, 2004, plaintiffs

indicated that Federico Tenorio would consent to dismissal of his "strip search" claims in the

above-captioned action. However, plaintiffs' counsel has further indicated that Mr. Tenorio

would continue to press those claims that relate to the conditions of his confinement.

Defendants' counsel had previously proposed a Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal,

seeking to dismiss with prejudice all of Mr. Tenorio's claims in the Spinner litigation, including

the conditions of confinement claim, based on certain representations made during Mr. Tenorio's

deposition in another related action, Cence v. City of New York, No. 03 CV 4114 (S.D.N.Y.).

Having now clarified plaintiffs' position, which is that Mr. Tenorio only agrees to the

dismissal of his strip search claims in Spinner, it is respectfully recommended that an order enter:

(1) dismissing, with prejudice, all claims against all defendants named in the action

Spinner v. City of New York, 01 CV 2715 (CPS), that relate to Mr. Tenorio's search by NYPD

personnel;

(2) permitting Mr. Tenorio to maintain his "conditions" claims in the Spinner action;

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 264 Filed 03/16/2004 Page 2 of 2
(3) precluding either party from calling Mr. Tenorio as a witness during the first phase of the trial dealing with strip search allegations; and
(4) permitting defendants to depose Mr. Tenorio on his conditions claim prior to the commencement of that phase of the trial dealing with claims based on conditions of confinement.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of the Court, with a copy to the undersigned, within ten (10) days of receipt of this Report. Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court's order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(e), 72; Small v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989).
The Clerk is directed to mail copies of this Report and Recommendation to the parties. SO ORDERED. Dated: Brooklyn, New York
March / 0 , 2004
Cheryl L. United S es Magistrate Judge Eastern District of New York
2

 
 Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 295 Filed 05/18/2004 Page 1 of 3

I"J CI.FPKS or~I(,E

U,S. rv"~-'··"

"J Y:

"'* * UNTTED STATES OISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---•••------•••---....-------••------..•••------...-----•••--".----- X 1'-. M. ______
TIM:C .4.M.

'\llCHAEL SPJ1\:--lER, et al., individually and on behalf of

a class of all others similarly situated,

STlPULATIO;.l

-against-

PlaintiffS,

Al\'DORDER
DECERTl.FYING
THE
I;.IJUNCTI\-")j;

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et a1..

CLASS

Defend.nn.ts. --••••------.------.....----.....-----....------ ----- --------.----------X

CV 012715
(CPS)(CLP)

-

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

M __ _

........... -

-

--- -

~ . . . . . . -

-- - ....... -- -

- -- -

X

MOHA.c\-fMED IV\BROLT individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated.
Plaintiffs,

-against-

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et aI., Defendants.
-_____ --______----- ._-------•••••----- _•••--------'.----_.,-.------ •X

CV 021039
(CPS)(CLP)

....---------.----•••••---- -.- ••-----.......-----••••----•••--------- -X TODD KNaPKE, et a!.. individually and on behalfofa class of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, ·against· THE CITY OF :t<E\V YORK, et aL
Defendants. ----------.- -------••---..--••••--------X

CV 018264 \CPS)(CLP}

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 295 Filed 05/18/2004 Page 2 of 3

--~......--~~-........-----~....----~-......" "".~""---" - ------- ~-~---......---- ......-----x

ANTHO:-.JY MICCmLLI, et ai, individu"Uy and on behalf
of a class of all olhers '1mi I"rly situated,

Plaintiffs,

-8 gainst-

THE CITY OF ~w YORK, et aI,

Defendants,

, - - - . ,• • • • • • - - • • •_______ • • • " " - " - - 0 " ____ 0"

___ _.. __ " ' 0 00, __•

___ ,

x _ _ _ _

STIPULATION A..,\D ORDER DECERTIFYlNG
THE
INJlJNCTIVE CLASS
eV022899 (CPS)(CLP)

WHEREAS, on October 10,2003, this Court certified a class ill this consoJidatcn action for injunctive relief, pursuant to Fed. R Civ. P 23(b)(2); and
WH~REAS, defendants moved by Notice of Motion dated March 26, 2004 to decertiry the class and to dismiss all claims for injunctive relief for lack of subjecr m'ttcr Jurisdiction (the
"'March 26, 2004 motion"); and
WHEREAS, in a submission to the Court dated March 26,2004, plaintiffs responded to
the March 26, 2004 motion by stating that they "WilhnT"w their claims for injunctive rclicf~" and
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2004, plainliff> withdrew their claims for injunctive relief on the record before this Court and the Coun dismissed all claims for injunctive relief in these actions;
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that, upon the March 26,2004 motion and all papers submItted in support thereof, the dif>missal of all claims for injunctive relieJ on April 22, 2004, the agreement of the paI!i"" and pursuant to Rule 23 ofthe

£G'd 17e:tl1 1700e 91: J dtJ

2

£291-88L-cl1:: xe,:J

IN:3Wl<JtJd3G PltJl J'\~I

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 295 Filed 05/18/2004 Page 3 of 3

J;,.,<'Ieral 'Ru\.." of' Civil Pro<cdw c, tlo", iJljuncdve relief class certI1icd by the Court on October 10, 2003 pursuant to Fed. R. (iv, p, 23(b)(2) is hereby DECERTIFIEO,

MICHAEL A. CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of the City of New York ,1ttomeyfo,- Deje",lunts
100 Church Street
New York, ~ew York 10007 Tel.; (212) 788-0988 Fax: (212) 786-0367
By:
Alan H. Schemer (AS-7991) Assistant Corporation Counsel

Richard J, Cardinale, Esg, CARDINALE HUESTON & MARTI'i'ELU Attorneys [or Plaintiffs 26 Court Street. Suite 1815 Brooklyn, New York 11242 TeL (718) 624-9391 Fax (718) 624·4748
By: ,,?-/,/,,--Ci..-
Richard 1. Cardinale, Esq, (Re-8S07)

Dated:

New York, New York ApriJ __, 2004

CHARLES P. SIFT U.S.D';,
95/01

170'd

:I7T 1700Z 9Z jdj

lN3WldIJd3G 1~lJl ),\N

 
 Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 298 Filed 06/09/2004 Page 1 of 6

UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERl\ DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

1<"';

, -----------.--_...__.. _-_._--------------------------------------------~)(

·,.\l!? £. ',:1

MICHAEL SPINNER, et al., individually and on hehalf'of a class of all others similarly situated,

PlailililTs,

-against-

THE CITY OF l\EW YORK, et aI"

Defendants,
----x

, ,1-,1 V
STIPULATIO:,>/ AND ORDEROF SETTLE:\IENT AND DISCOl'iTlNUANCE CV 012715
(crS)(CLP)

......._______.____................____________------ .... ___________----x
MOHAMMED HABROUT, individually and on behalfof " ('I,,~s of all others similarly situated,
PlaintilTs, -againstTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, et at.,
Defendants, ........._---------_...........••••••_---------_............••••.•._.... )(

CV 021039 (CPS)(CLP)

...._...._----------_..._---------------_...._......_- .............••_--)(
TODD KNOPKE, et aI" individually and on behalf ofa class of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, . against·
TIlE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Defendants,
-...... _-----------_ ..... _.-----------------_ .. _------------------_.----)(

CV 018264 (CPS)(CLP)

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 298 Filed 06/09/2004 Page 2 of 6

-----------------------------------------------------------------------)(
ANTHON'!' MTCCIULLl, c\ a1., individually and 011 behalf of a class of all others similarly situated,
Plaiulifro, -against-
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et aL,
Defelldant,.

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF
SETTLEMENT AND
DISCONTINUANCE
CV 02 2899 (CPS)(CLP)

WHEREAS, plaintiffs commenced these actions by fIling complaints on or about

February 17, 2001 (Habroul), May 2, 2001 (SpiIUler), Decclllbcr 11, 2001 (Kllupke), dud May

14, 2002 (Micciulli), alleging that defendants violated plaintiffs' civil and state common law

rights; and

WHEREAS, defendants have denied any and all liability arising out otplainlltts'

allegations; and

WHEREAS, the parties now desire to resolve the issues raised in this litigation,

without further proceedings and without admitting any fault or liability;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HERFBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and
between the undersigned, as follows:

1_ The above-referenced actions are hereby dismissed as against all defendants,

witlI 1',t:judiCt;, and without costs, expenses, 01- fees in excess of the amount spcc-ificd in

paragraph "2" below_

2. Defendant City of New York hereby agrees to pay plaintiffs the total sum of

t " . '-/.{"J "l' , ,--, "f )1-

", consisting of a total ofl_/,:' I \ --/ . -

- broken down as follows:

2

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 298 Filed 06/09/2004 Page 3 of 6

'/.t';> ) I

,.

plaintiff plaintiff

Barbara
Paul

Adam,; Brumaire;

plaintitT

Alexasandra

Jargilo;

'!J

plaintiff

William

Mauro;

/'1

plaintiff

Cornelius

Philips;

ft

for

plaintiff

Marcel

Sarfati;

"~;
t • • (,

(

, ,....< ,

(

rf. [" ,.:....I..

i'

is ~, L

i~
" ! .)
. .
,

, 'tr 1(.

.
(

( (

'l:I ( 1::.
fJ ' I·

( , ( ,"

[,

'.
\ .,
/
\ I
PJ: ~~-

- / .- (

plaintiff

Guytho

Vernet;

for

plaintiff

Kewal

Chhatwal;

for

plaintiff

Mohammed

Habrout;

for

plaintiff

Francis

Becht;

for

plaintiff

Michael

Spinner;

tor

pJal111!tt

rrank

Canterlno;

for

plaintiff

Yvonne

James;

for

plaintiff

Mark

Kennish;

for

plaintiff

Todd

Knopke;

plaintiff

Angie

Melecio;

plaintiff

Anthony

Micciulli;

plaintiff

Troy

Stephen;

pluinti ff

Eric

Thompson;

plaintiff Federico Tenorio; and

in attorney fees and expenses incuned on behalf of the foregoing plaintiffs, in

full satisfaction of all claims, including claims for costs, expenses and attorney fees. In

consideration for the payment of this sum, plaintiffs agree to dismissal of all the claims against

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 298 Filed 06/09/2004 Page 4 of 6
the City of New York and the individually named defendants and to release all defendants, any present or former employees or agents of the City of New York or the New York City Police Department, and the City of New York from any and all liability, claims, or rights of action
which were or could have been alleged by the plaintiffs in the above captioned matters arising
out of the event alleged in the complaints of these actions, including claims for costs, expenses, and attorney fee"
3. Other than as set forth in paragraph "2" above, neither plaintiffs alone nor any party in privity with any of them, nor counsel shal! have any recovery for any damages, illjury, eyui(dbk or atl'''l Idie£, or fees or costs in conl1ection herewith.
4. It is expressly understood and agreed by plaintiffs and the City of New York that the settlement sum in paragraph "2" above is inclusive of any and all claims for any fees arising from the legal work performed by Cardinale Hueston and Marinelli, and Robert lsseks Esq., in connection with the above captioned matters including, but not limited to, any work performed on M9.!)ell-related issues, conditions claims, strip search claims, class certification, discovery and/or the disqualification motion. Cardinale Hueston and Marinelli, and Robert Isseks Esq., shall not seek to recover fees or expenses incurred or arising nut of the above captioned actions in any other or subsequent actions.
5. Plaintiff shall execute and deliver to defendants' attorney all documents necessary to effect this settlement, including, without limitation, a General Release based on the terms of paragraph 2 above, and an Affidavit of No Liens, all executed as appropriate for each plaintiff.
6. Nothing contained herein shall be de~IIled to be an admission by any of the defendants that they have in any manner or way performed the acts or omissions alleged in the
4

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 298 Filed 06/09/2004 Page 5 of 6

complaints herein or that the defendants violated plaintiffs' rights, or the rights of any other

person or entity, as detined in the constitutions, statutes, ordinances, rules or regulations of the

United States, the State of New York, or the City of New York or any other rules, regulations or

bylaws of any department or subdivision of the City of New York. This stipulation shall not be

admissible in, nor is it related to, any other litigation or settlement negotiations, except tor the

purposes Qf enforcing this agre~ment

7. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to constitute a policy or practice of the City ofNcw York, the New York City Police Department, the New York City Department

of Correction, or the remaining Ul any putential City Defendants.

8. This Stipulation and Order contains all the tenns and conditions agreed upon by the parties hereto, and no oral agreement entered into at any time nor any written agreement

entered into prior to the execution of this StIpulatIOn and Urder regarding the subject matter of

the instant proceedings shall be deemed to exist, or to bind the parties hereto, or to vary the terms

and conditions contained herein.

MICHAEL A. CARDOZO
Corporation Counsel of the
City "fN"w York Attorneyfor Defendants
100 Church Street
New York, New York 19007

Tel.: Fax:

((22121)~7-,,8?8-3,069878

", ('".. /

By: ,/ -=~/._-Il-,"" .~5/ ;-d '/~.\ ~_

Alan H. Scheiner (AS-7991) ,

Assistant Corporation Counsel

Richard J. Cardinale, Esq. CARDINALE HUESTON & MARINELLI Attorneys for Plal1lirjJs 26 Court Street, Suite 1815
Brooklyn, New York 11242 Tel. (718) 624-9391 Fax (718) 624-4748
~ BRyichard~sq.-(RC~85-07)
Mi~ha"l Hueston, E"l, (MH-~

Robert N. Isscks, Esq, 6 North Street
Middletown, NY 10940 (Tel) (845) 344-4322

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 298 Filed 06/09/2004 Page 6 of 6
•
•

Dated:

New York, New York
.June~,2004

SO ORDERED:

o

 
 Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 301 Filed 04/22/2004 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

BEFORE: SIFTON, J.

DATE:

TIME: /:1. ~O·

DOCKET *:CV-Ol-2715
TITLE: Michael Spinner
VS.
City of New York, et a1.

DEPUTY CLERK: Stanley Kessler

COtJP.T REPOP.TEP.i/';

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff: Richard Cardinale, Esq.; lii:olae;,zL lss9&$, fLl" 'pghert )f
For All Oef'ts: JiHIo;Q.;."'dl;i;dlel:l::cp="""......-AA~C~Cc:.....;;' Alan Scheiner, A.C.C. i/c;'.-~,-"

oli£, G'sq ___
Cd +=;.. -r--e-I/,

CIVIL CAUSE FOR STATUS CONFERENCE

~

Case called.

/All parties PI.t')~:JeIlL.

Oilly cuull~el [OL

___ present.

Counsel for illl parties except _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _yre~ent.
~Status conference held.

Status report given.

Status conference scheduled for/adjourned to

at 4:30 p.m.

Motion of pltff/deft for
returnable on

at 4:30 p.m.

to be made

.~ ,

 
 Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 306 Filed 06/13/2005 Page 2 of 7

MICHAEL A. CARDOZO r.:.rpoJYJ1lml C••n.re/
By Facsimile Richard Cardinale. Esq. Caroinalc, Hu,,~ton 8c: Marinelli 26 Court Street, Suile 600 Brooklyn, NY 11242

THE CITY OF New YORK
LAW DEPARTMENT
100 CHURCH STREET
NEWYOIUC. NY 10007

May 27, 2004

ALAN H. SCllElNiR Senior COIIIl..1 Room 3-213
I'honc: (>12) 722$88 F.., (ZI2) 788-0)67
Bscheine@1aw.nYC.84Jv

Re: Spinnerv. City ofNew York. CV 012715, CV 021039, CV 018264,
CV 02 2899 (CPS) (eLl')

Dear Mr. Cardinale:

In an effort to facilitate discussions at tomorrow'5 5ettlement conference before Magistrate Pollak, please be advised of the following authority which we will raise and believe should be taken into account during settlement negotiations.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.S. §1997e(e) (2004), states: "Limitation on recovery. No federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner I confined in a jail, prison. or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a
prior showing ofphysicaJ injury." This statute has been held to apply with equal force to both plaintiffs who bring suit while confined as well as those who bring stlil after lhey are released. See Cox v. Malone, 199 F. Supp.2d 135, 140 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (where the court stated "(t)he fortuity of release [ ) does not affect the kind of damages that must be alleged in order to SUlVive the gate-keeping fUnction of section I 997e(e). Because plaintiff's suit alleges only emotional
injuries, it is barred by the PLRA inespective orltis status as a parolee at the time of filing."), affd, 56 Fed. Appx. 43 (2d Cir.2003). We also intend to argue that the attorney·fee limitation
of42 u.s.c.s. §1997e(d) applies with the same force as the 1997e(e) limitation on damages.

I 42 U.S.C.S. §1997e(h) states: "AS used in this section, the term ''prisoner'' means any person incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenoed for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms lind conditions of parole, probation. pretrial release, or diversionary program."

J N1W I >lH..l':lrl ml_" .." ..

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 306 Filed 06/13/2005 Page 3 of 7 As you are aware, your clients only claim emotional damages (and not physical
injuries) and thus would be preclUded from recovering compensatory damages pursuant to the above authority from this Circuit.
We look forward to discussing this and other points at the settlement conference tomorrow.
2lL
Alan H. Scheiner (AS-7991)
Assistant Corporation Counsel
ce. The Honorable Cheryl L. Pollak (via fax) (718) 260-2358
2
£O·d

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 306 Filed 06/13/2005 Page 4 of 7

THE CIT\' OF NEW YORK
LAW DEPARTMENT
IOOCHVRQiSTRUT NEW YORl<, NY 10007
FACSIMILE TRAN:SMlSSION

TO:

1he HonOtable Cheryl L. Pollak'

United States District Court

FROM: Alan H. Schein~, Bsq.
Senior Counsel

FAX#: (718) 260-2358

DATE: May 27, 2004

You should receive 3 page (s), including this one.
1'1011&. concac! me if you do'not receivc.u page,.
This (acsimile conlAin. CON1'IDENTIAL INFORMATION which may also be LEGALLY PRJVILEGED. It is intended only for use of"tbe addre$$Oe(8) named above, IfyoII are neilher the intended recipient of this fac$imile nor the employee Ot agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified !hat disseminating or copying this f"".imile .. pro.hibi!ed.. !fyau bave J'e(leived this facsimile in mor, pl.""" notify this office by telephone and return the original to the address set forth by the United State. Postal Service. Th.onk you.
Message:
Please see attached correspondence. Re: Spinner, et al. v. City of New York, et al.

~060-SSl-clc:xe~

lN3Wl~~d3a mHl lA~

.. C·~22/..e..4.·/2'SaCar4'ar s'We69b1:m:6041s-rcv-70,1297S21252-EC12P6S-CLP DocumentLA3W06OFFIFCEiled 06/13/2005 Page 5 ofP7AGE 82

Eptera

Issued by the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF

New York

MICHAEL SPiNNER, ET AL"
v.

SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE
CASE NUMBER: ' 01 CV 2115 (CPS) (ClP)

CITY OF New YORK, cT. AL..

TO: City of New York New York City Pollee Department New York City Fire Department /EMS Division
o YOU ARE COMMANDED 10 appear!n the UnilAlld SIBIBl! District Court at the place. dalB. and time speCified below to testily
in the above case,
PUC!iQF

o YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the' place. date, and limB 9peclfled below 10 testify at the taking of a deposition in .
the allOvs case.
CZJ YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or Objects at the place, .
date. and time !pecifled below (list documents or objects): The arrest. cnminal court. and Brooklyn Central Booking records of the Individuals listed in Exhibit 1. annexed hereto.
!'\AC'
New_York City Law Department. 100 Chucrh Stnaet. lilY, NY 10007: Attention; Alan Scheiner
o yOU ARE COMMANDED 10 permit inspectfon of the following premises at the date and time specified below.

Any ofO"ni7.ation not a Pllrty to this suit that Is subpoenaeC1 for the taking of a deposition shall C1esl9nate one or more
..-----amesrs, directors, or managing agents. or other persons who consent to tastily on its behalf, and may set forth. for each person
designated. the matters on which the person williestlfy, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 30(b)(6).

United States Magistrete Judga

ble eneryl L. POllak. U.S. Magistrate Judge. 225 Cadman Plaza East. Brooklyn, NY 11201. (118) 280.2360

(SMI AlA. 45,"",. AuIII tJlQIoi ~ Pant C & 0 ~ AI'*WI

omer I If action ie pending II" alMtfct

V1an dkltriel of~...... cIWI« undw ~ nUl'l"lbM.

_~/a~/2aeC4ase819::E0l41-cv-071297512522-C1!lP26S-CLP Document L3A0W6 OFFIFCiEled 06/13/2005 Page 6 of P7AGE B?
EXHIBIT 1
1. Carmen Ph iJizllre
39 Tiger Co\Ut, Staten Island, New York 10314
DOB: 6120/65 Arrest and date ofconfinement in Brooklyn Central Booking ("BCB"): 2/25101 to 2/26/01 2. Kadiln McBel.ll 192 Eut 96th Street, Brooklyn, New York: 11212 DOB: 7/3/83 Arrest and BCB incarceration: 5129/02 to 5/30/02 and 4/12/03 to 4/13/03 3. Marsha Wilson 589 East 89lh Street, Apt. # 2, 11236 DOB: 9/15/89 Arrest and BCB incarceration: 9/13101 to 9/14/01 4. Shlrene Monteeier 136 St. Pauls Place, Apt. # 3e, Brooklyn, New York 11226 DOB: 118170
huest and sea incarceration: 10/24/03 to 10/25/03.
_ 5. Benjamin Peker 1745 East 12lh Street, Apt. # 2A, Brooklyn, New York 11229 DOB: 6/30183 Arrest and BCB incarceration: 7111101 to 7/12101
6. Klah Finney
303 Gates Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11216
DOB: 1116/69 Arrest and BCB incarceration: 5127/02 to 5128/02

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 3L0A6W OFFFIilCeEd 06/13/2005 Page 7 of 7PAGE 81

CARDINALE HUESTON & MARINELLI
A.TTORNEYS AT LAW 2' CQURT STREET. SUITE 600
BaOOltLYN. NEW YORII: 11242 (1\1) 614.'391
Pa •• l",iI. (11') 522-2026

Richard J. Cudlnale
Mic:huIH_....
Rabert J. Mtn..m

February 4, 2004

By Facsimile (718) 260-23511 The Honorable Cheryl L. Pollak United States Courthouse 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201
Re: Spinner v. City ofNew York. CV 012715 (CPS)(CLP)

¥ourHonor:
I request that the Court sign the enclosed subpoena so that defense counsel can obtain the records of the six non-party witnee;s\:s in the next few days. A5 Your Honor may recall, such a subpoena was signed in this action in 2002. which resulted in document production in just a few days. If we proceed instead with releases signed by the witnesses (as defense counsel dC$.ires), defense counsel will not obtain the documents for weeks or perhaps even months. This willprovide defense counsel with reason to seek an extension of the February 20, 2004 discovery deadline.

counsel.

As. soon as the subpoena is singed. I will pick it up and deliver it to defense

Respectfully.

Copy: Alan Scheiner (by fax)

Richard]. Cardinale (RC 8507)

 
 Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 217

~ Filed 12/22/2003 Page 1 of 13

[lEC

'3JJj

L'NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF l\EW YORK
--- ---- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- ----- --- -- --- -- -- --- -- -- -- -- ------------- -- -- ---X

€:I ORIGINAL

MICHAEL SPfNNER, l'RANCIS BECHT, PAUL

BRUMAIRE, FRA::-:IK CANTERINO, a minor by his

mother LINDA CAl\TERINO, KEWAL CHATTWAL,

; '(

MOHAMMED HAf3ROUT, YVOl\TNE JAMES,

" ,

ALEKSANDRA JARGILO, MARK KENNISH, TODD CONSOLIDATED __

, - '-

KNOPKE, WILLIAM MAURO, ANGJE MELICIO, COMPJ.,AINT

<. ,,'

ANTHONY MICCIULLI, BARBARA PHILIPS ADAMS,

COR.:'!EIUUS PHILIPS, CARMEN PHlLlZAIRE,

MARCEL SARFATI, TROY STEPHEN, ERIC

THOMPSON, GUYTHO VERNET, individually and on CVOI8264 behalf of a class of all others similarly situated,

FEDERICO TENORIO, ALEXANDER T1MOFEEV, CV 02 2899

individually,

CV 02 1039

Plaintiffs,

(CPS) (eLP)

-against-

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, BERNARD B_ KERIK, HOWARD SAFIR, RUDOLPH GIULIANI, GARY KATZ, TH01.1AS RCSSO, JOHN O'COl\NELL, BARBARA PRATO, JA.,\1ES MCLOONE, DETECTIVE PAUL DENVBR, POLICE OFFICER EDWIN CABAN, POLICE OFFICERS JOHN & JANE DOES 1-500 (a fictitious name for n\lmerous unidentified police officers employed in Brooklyn Central Booldng),

Defendants_

-- ----- ----- -- -- -- --- --- -- -- --- --- -- -- --- -- -- -- ------- ------ -- -- -- -- --- X

CARDINALE HUESTON & MARlNELLI 26 Court Street, Suite 600 Brooklyn, Ne\v York 11242 (718) 624-9391
ROBERT N. ISSEKS, ESQ, (RNI-0241) 6 North Street Middletown, New York 10940 (845) 344-4322

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 217 Filed 12/22/2003 Page 2 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--- -- ---- ••••••••••••••••• --- ----- ----- -- --- -- -- -- ----- ---- -- -- -- -- ---. X

MICHAEL SPINNER, FRANCIS BECHT, PAUL BRUMAIRE, FRANK CANTERINO, a minor by his mother LINDA CANTERINO, KEWAL CHATTWAL, MOHAMMED HABROUT, YVO:'-JNE JAMES, ALEKSANDRA JARGILO, MARK KE)lNISH, TODD KNOPKE, WILLIAM MAURO, AKGIE MELIeIO, ANTHONY MICCIULLI, BARBARA PHILIPS ADAMS, CORNEJLIUS PHILIPS, CARMEN PHILIZAIRE, IVIARCEL SARFATI, TROY STEPHEN, ERIC THOMPSON, GUYTHO VERNET, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, FEDERICO TENORIO, ALEXANDER TIMOFEEV, individnally,

CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT CV012715 CVOI8264 CV 02 2899

Plaintiffs, CV021039

-against-

(CPS) (CLP)

II-IE CITY OF NEW YORK, BERNARD B, KERIK, HOW tl.RD SAFIR, RUDOLPH GIULIANI, GARY KATZ, THOMAS RUSSO, JOHN O'CONNELL, BARBARA PRATO, JAMES MCLOONE, DETECTIVE PAUL DENVER, POLICE OFFICER EDWIN CABAN, POLICE OFFICERS JORK & JANE DOES 1-500 (a fictitious name l'or numerous unidentified police officers employed in Brooklyn Central Booking),

Jury Trial Demanded

Defendants. ----------------------.-..--------------------------------------------- X

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

l. This is a civil lights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S ,C. § 1983, the

Fourth and Fomteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and state law, in which the

named plaint! ITs, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals, seek relief

for violations of their rights which occuned while the plaintiffs were in the custody of the New

York City Poliee Department ("NYPD"') at Brooklyn Central Booking located at 120

Schermerhom Street in Brooklyn. New York.

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 217 Filed 12/22/2003 Page 3 of 13
Two aspccts of the plaintiffs' confinement arc challenged: (J) improper strip searches that occurred ami are still occurring at Brooklyn Central Booking; and (2) exposure to unsanitary and inhumane conditions in Brooklyn Central Booking,
The class, as defined in the Memorandum and Order of October 6, 2003, is defined as all persons who since 1998 (1) have been charged with misdemeanors or noncriminal offenses in Kings County; (2) wcre as a result detained at Brooklyn Central Booking; and (3) were, during their detention, strip searched at Brooklyn Central Booking without regard for the existence of probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
Plainti lTs also seek certification on the conditions of Brool<lyn Central Booking as well as on defendants' policy, practice, andlor custom of strip searching dctainees in the presence of onlookers andlor members of the opposite sex.
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the class they represent, seek compensatory and punitive dan)ages, declaratory and injunctive relief, an award of costs and aUomeys' fees, and snch other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.
Two of the plaintiffs -- Becht and Corncilius Philips -- also assert claims of false
arrest and malicious prosecution, bnt these are ancillary issues, simple in natme, which will not
overshadow the primary claims in this litigation. Also, plaintiIT Mohammed Habrout asserts a claim nnder the Thirteenth Amendment.
JURISDICTION & VENUE 2. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the l'omth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and l'ed. R. Civ. P. 23. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by the aforesaid statutes and 28 U.S.c. §§ 1331 and 1343.

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 217 Filed 12/22/2003 Page 4 of 13
3. Plaintiffs invok~ the supplemental jurisdiction of this Cowt pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1367 to hear and decide claims arising under state law.
4. Venuc is proper in this district pursuant to 28 V.S.c. § 1391 because a
substantial pOition ofthe facts alleged occuned in Kings Counly. NOTICES OF CLAIM
5. For the majority of the plamtiffs. notices of claim were filed upon the City of New York within ninety days of the incidents at issne, more than thirty days haves elapsed since such filings, and thc City has refused to settle plaintiffs' claims.
PARTIES 6. The named plaintiffs are residents of the State orNew York, County of Kings. 7. The City of New York is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York. 8. Howard Safir, sued herein in his official and individual capacities, MIS the Commissioner of the NYPD from April 15, 1996 to August 20, 2000. 9. I3ernard Kerik, sued herein in his official and individual capacities, \vas the Commissioner of the NYPD from August 20, 2000 to January 2002. 10. Gary Katz, Thomas Russo, lohn O'Connell, Barbara Prato, and James McLoone, sued herein in their official and individual capacities, are present and former commanders of Brooklyn Central Booking. 11. Rudolph Giuliani, sued herein in his official And individual capacities, is the fOTIller Mayor of the City of New York.

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 217 Filed 12/22/2003 Page 5 of 13
12. The individual defendants were either directly involved in the
unconstitntional actions alleged herein, or are liable as snpervisors.
13. Detective Paul Denver is the officer who arrested plaintifTFrancis Becht. He is sned in his individual and official capacities.
14. Police Officer Edwin Caban is the officer who arrested plaintiff Corneilius Philips. He is sued in his individual and official capacities. ,
STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Strip Searches
15. The Fourth Amendment to thc United States Constitution pl'Ohibits government officials from performing stnp searches of arrestccs charged with misdemeanors or other lesser offenses unless the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the atTcstee is concealing a weapon or other contraband based on the crime charged, the particular characteristics of the arrestee, or the circumstances ofthc arrest.
16. Even where the requisite suspicion exists, the Constitution mandates that strip scarches be conducted in a reasonable manner. A strip search is unreasonable if it is carried out by, or in thc prcsence of, officers of a different sex as the arrested person, or in the presenec ofonlclOkers or other arrcstecs.
17. Defendants created and maintain a policy, practice and custom m Brooklyn Central Booking of carrying out baseless and unlawful strip searches.
18. These strip searches are perrormed on every individual who is proccssed through Brooklyn Central Booking. Under defendants' policy, it is immaterial that the arrestec is charged with a misdemeanor and that there is an absence of reason to believe that the alTestcc is concealing contraband. Moreover, the strip searches arc conducted in the most humiliating

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 217 Filed 12/22/2003 Page 6 of 13

manner possible, in full view of numerous officers and arrestees, and often times in from of members of(he opposite sex.

19. Defendants and officials at the highest-levels ofmwlicipaJ government are

aware that unlawful strip searches are being conducted in Brooklyn Central Booking on a

widespread and persistent basis. This knowledge is deriyed from defendants' direct participation

in the practice, their own observations, conversations with their colleagues, reports from

subordinates, ami from the numerous lawsuits, claims and complaints filed on the practice.

Defendants and other officials, however, have been deliberately indifferent to the problem, have

been grossly negligent, and/or have failed to take appropriate remedial action.

20. The named plaintiffs, after being arrested for misdemeanors, were

subjected to the above-described unlawful strip search practice:

a. MTCHAEL SPINNER on or about January 4, 2001.

b. FRANCIS BECHT on or about October 4, 2000.

c. PAUL BRUMAlRE on or about March 19,2002.

d. FRANK CANTERlNO on or about June 2, 2001.

e. KEWAL CHATTWAL 011 or about November 3, 2001.

f. MOHAMMED HABROUT on or about Decembcr 17, 1999.

g. YVONNE JAMES on or about May 2, 2001.

h. ALEKSANDRA JARGILO on or about March 5, 2001.

I.

MARK KENNISH on or about July 5, 2001.

J.

TODD K0fOPKE on or abom May 20, 2001.

k. WILLIAM MAURO on or about September 13, 1999.

I.

ANGIE MELlCIO on or about March 30, 2001.

;

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 217 Filed 12/22/2003 Page 7 of 13
m, ANTHONY MICCIULLI on or about AprillO, 2001. n. BARBARA PHILIPS (ADAMS) on or about July 8, 2001, o. CORNElLIUS PHILIPS on or about March 28. 2001. p. CARMEN PHILIZAIRE on or about Febwary 25, 2001. q. MARCEL SARFATI on or about April 29, 2001. r. TROY STEPHEN on or about January 31, 2001, s. FEDERICO TENORIO on or about November 24, 2000. t. ERIC THOMPSON on or about Febwary 14, 2001. u. ALEXANDER TIMOFEEV on or about April 1, 2001, v. GUYTI-IO VERNET on or about February 15, 2001. B. Unconstitutional Conditions of Brooklyn Central Booking 21. Jail conditions are unconstitutional where they result III serious deprivations ofbasie human needs and are imposed with deliberate indifference. 22. Each of the named plaintiffs was processed at Brooklyn Central Booking. While incarcerated at Brooklyn Central Booking, plaintiffs and numerous other arrcstces were held in filthy, disease-ridden, overcrowded jail cells. These jail cells have been infested with rodents and roaches for years. Moreover, there is often human feces and excrement on the floor and on the single toilet that the numerous arrestees in a cell are forced to share without privacy. The toilet is clogged and overflov,.s onto the floor. Toilet paper and bedding are nonexistent. There is no access to clean drinking water. Temperatures are in the extremes, Mlik is stored in a refrigerator that is labeled as containing "biohazards," There are health officials present in the facility advising the arrcstecs to be tested for tuberculosis once they are released, Violent criminals roam without supervision. The guards assigned to Central Booking look the other way
"

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 217 Filed 12/22/2003 Page 8 of 13
at these dangerous conditions, and either ignore or utter profanities to arrestees who seek (heir
assistance. The guards sometimes subject arrcstees to forced labor. Mohammed Habrout was
ordered to transport a heavy crate of milk. The typical arrestce spends 24 harrowing hours in Central Booking.
23. Defendants and officials at the highest-levels of municipal govemment are aware of the unconstitutional conditions of Brooklyn Central Booking and know lhat such
conditions exist on a widespread and persistent basis. This knowledge is derived from
defendants' direct participation in the operation of the facility, the officials' own observations,
conversations with colleagucs, reports from subordinates, and from the numerous lawsuits,
claims and complaints filed by arrcstees and municipal cmployees. Defendants and other
officials, however, have been deliberately indifferent to the problem, have been grossly
negligent, and/or have failed to take appropriatc remedial action. Accordingly, defendants have
created and maintain a policy, practice and custom in Brooklyn Central Booking of confining
detainees in Brooklyn Central Booking in lin unconstitutional manner.
24. In a January 31, 1999 article appearing in the New York Times, Sunday
Edition, a journalist rcponed on her experience in Brooklyn Central Booking after being arrested on a minor offense:
Our dubious sorority was locked in a grimy, littered cell, which we shared with free-range mice and cockroaches. There was one open, seatless toilet The food consisted of desiccated bread sandwiching slabs of something pink and slimy. (I ended up eating mustard and mayonnaise sandwiches). The milk was warm, and one of the guards told us the ,,·ater was contaminated wilh lead. Another guard decided I was his type, and made sure J knew where (0 find him in case my man-iage fell apalt.

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 217 Filed 12/22/2003 Page 9 of 13
About !O P.M., after six hours in lockup, my lawyer stopped by for the lasl time that day to loll me that it takes 24 to 30 hours for the paperwork to go
through Albany. r wouldn't see a judge until that
happened.
I resigned myself to spending the night. r lay down
on the cold, dirty, linoleum noor '"ith the 'girls,"
my sneakers for a pillow. r \~rapped myself in a
reeking jacket that one of the women lent me. I worried about lice, and told myself that the congested coughing I heard was probably not a sign of tuberculosis. The guard woke us several times to
move us en masse from one cell to another. Without explanation, breakfast arrived at 3 A.M. (Warm
milk, boxes of dry cereal, no utcnsils.). C. Class Allegations
25. As the C0U11 has already found, the requirements of a class action are met
in this case.
26. First, the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
Most of the named plaintiffs in this case observed nmncrous individuals other than themselves
being strip searched without regard to individualized suspicion. Indeed, the officers employed
in Central Booking plainly laekcd knowledge of what plaintiffs and the other arrestccs were
charged with, and conducted strip searches in all assembly"line manner. The named plaintiffs
also observed numerous of their fellow arrestccs being subjected to the same depraved
conditions of confinement. The named plaintiffs Bnd the numerons individnals who were
confined with (hem provide just a small sample of (he thousands of individuals processed in
Brooklyn Central Booking each year.
27. Second, there arc questions of law and fact common to the class, and the
claims of the class representatives are typical of those of the class. Indeed, commonality and

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 217 Filed 12/22/2003 Page 10 of 13
typicality exist because the injuries complained of by the named plainti CIs resulted from the same unconstitutional practice, cnstom and pattem that injured and will injure the class members.
28. Third, the named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The named plaintiffs are stable residents of Brooklyn, they havc no arrest history, and they possess a genuine interest in remedying the harm that was inflicted upon them and others.
29. Fourth, the undersigned attorneys are highly-experienced in federal civil rights litigation and arc able and quahfied to conduct the class wide litigation. D. Claims of False Arrest and Malicious ProsecutiOll by Plaiutiffs Francis Becht and
Corneilins Philips 30. Francis Becht: On October 4, 2000, Mr, Becht was arrested for
misdemeanor criminal mischief (vandalism) by Detective Paul Denver of the 62nd Police Prccinct. The misdemeanor charge against Becht was dismissed on March 15, 200t. Becht was arrested and prosecuted without probable cause because Detective Denver knew that Becht's neighbor, who had accused Becht of damaging her automobile, was emotionally disturbed and that her complaint was objectively implausible. Moreover, although Becht had paperwork in his possession that objectiyely and uneql!ivocally established that he was at work and not anywhere near his neighbor's property when the alleged vandalism occulTed, Detective Denver refused to consider the paperwork or alert prosecutors of its existence.
31. Comeilius Philips: On March 28, 2001, Philips was arrested by Police Officer Edwin Caban and others of Transit District 33, and falsely charged with Obstructing Governmental Administration, a misdemeanor. Philips nevcr obstructed the administration of the government. Philips merely attempted to explain to Officer Caball that he was not truant ii-om school, but 01) his way to a nearby doctor's office for an examination. During (his
o

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 217 Filed 12/22/2003 Page 11 of 13

f, Involuntary servitude (Mohammed Habrout).

35. The aforesaid conduct by defendants violated plaintiffs' rights under state law, Specifically, defendants' conduct constituted:
a. Assault and battery;

b, Negligence;

c, Negligent discharge of duties; d. Negligent hiring;

e, Negligent retention and monitoring of incompetent employees; f. Negligent supervision and training of municipal employees; g. An invasion of privacy;

h, Intentional infliction of emotional distress,

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand ajury trial and request the following relief:

a. Certification of the class described herein;

b, Compensatory damages in an amonnt to be detennined by ajury;

c. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined by ajury; d, Costs, interest and attorneys' fees;

e. Booking;

An injunction ceasing all improper strip searches at Brooklyn Central

f.

Such other and further relief as this COUlt may deem just and proper.

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 217 Filed 12/22/2003 Page 12 of 13

DATED:

December 22, 2003 Brooklyn, New York

CARDINALE HUESTON & MARlNELU 26 Conrt Street, Suite 600 Brooklyn, New York 11242 (718) 624"9391
By:
RICHARD 1. CARDlNALE (RC-8507)
ROBERT N.ISSEKS, ESQ. (RNI"0241) 6 North Street Middletown, New York 10940 (845) 344-4322

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 217 Filed 12/22/2003 Page 13 of 13

DECLARATIOl'\ OF SERVICE

I, Michael Hueston, declare, pUl'suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, under penalty of
perjury that on 12122/03, I caused to be served the annexed on thc following counsel ofreeord by h~nd deli\ering a copy of same to the address set forth below, being the address designated by said attomey for service:

Heidi Grossman New York City Law Department 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007

Dated:

Brooklyn, New York 12122/03

MICHAEL HUESTON

 
 Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 238 Filed 02/03/2004 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
~~~~~~~~~~~~-----------------------~-~-~--~-----------)(
MICIIAEL SPINNER, et al.,

Plaintiffs, - against -

REPORT
AN,P
RECOMMENDATION

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, t:t ai,

01 CV 2715 (CPS)

Defendants.
-----------~------------------------------------------)(

By leller dated December 29, 2003, defendants request that the Court, pursuant to Fed. R.

CIV. P. 41(b), dIsmIss wIth preJudIce the clmms of Alexander Timofeev, one of the named

plaintiffs in this class action.l Defendants assert that plaintiffs have failed to produce Mr.

Timofeev for a deposition, and that plaintiffs' counsel has represented that they are unable to

locate Mr. Timofeev. Plaintiffs, by letter dated January 5, 2004, concede that they have been

unable to locate 01' communicate with Mr. Timofeev. ThereJore. plaintiffs asscrt that MI'.

Timofeev's claims should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).

DISCUSSION Rule 41(a)(2) provides that, unless all parlies agree to a stipulation of dismissal, "an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon order of the court and upon

1 In the Court's Oruer granting class certification, Juuge Sit'ton noted that, since Mr. Timofeev conld not be located, he was not an adequate class representative, and therefore his claim would proceed only on an individual basis. (Mem. and Order dated Oct. 6, 2003, at J J n.7).

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 238 Filed 02/03/2004 Page 2 of 4
such lerms aml cUlllliliuIlS as tlie court ueeJll' propel." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).2 Rule 41(b) states that. "a defendant may move for dismissal of an aclion or of any claim ... [flor failure of the plaintiff to prosecute .... [uJnless the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, 3
dismissal under this subdivision ... operates as an adjudication upon the ments." fed. R. Ciy. P.
41 (h) "Volunt"ry dismiss"l without prp.jlldice is. . not a matter of right." ZaQano v. Fordham Univ., 900 F.2d 12, 14 (2d eir. 1990), and "[i]t is within the district court's sound discretion to deny a Rule 41(a)(2) motion to dismiss." Catanzano v. Wing, 277 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2001).
However, if the defendant will not be prejudiced, a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) will generally be allowed. Wakefield v. N. Telecom, Inc., 769 F2d109, lJ4 (2d
Cir. 1985). Generally speaking, "starting a litigation all over again docs not constitute legal prejUdice." D' Alto v. Dahon California, Inc., lOa FJd 281,283 (2d Cit'. 1996) (citing Jones v. SEC, 298 U.S. 1, 19 (1936».
In considering whether an action should be dismissed without prejudice, courts consider the following factors:
I) the plaintiff's diligence in bringing the motion; 2) any "unduc vexatiousness" on plaintiffs part; 3) the extent to which the suit has progressed, including the defendant's effort and expense in preparation for trial; 4) the duplicative expense of relitigalion; and 5) the adequacy of the plaintiff' 5 explanation for the need to dismiss.
L Rule 41(a)(2) also states that, [u]nless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal uncleI' this paragraph is without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ, P. 41(a)(2).
2

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 238 Filed 02/03/2004 Page 3 of 4
Catanzano y, Win~, 277 [',3d at 110 (quoting ZiJ.£i!:D.Q.LJ.:'Q!3!!:!illJl1!!!i:!L.c, 900 F,2d at 14), see also Bosteve Ltd, v, Marauszwski, 110 F.R.l), 257, 259 (E,D,N,Y, 1986),
Here, plaintiffs agreed to the dismIssal of Mr. Timofeev's claims as soon as the matter was brought to the attention of the Court by defendants, Although the Court cannot evaluate the adequacy of Mr. Timofeev's explanation for his ahsence because counsel has been unable to contact him, there has been no showing that Mr. Timofccv's absence is the result of bad faith or a lack of diligence on the part of plaintiff's counsel. Since this action will proceed on a class basis, rhe prospect of relirigarion of Mr. Timofeev's claims is unlikely; presumably Mr. Timo[eev will be entitled to any relief ultimately granted to the class,
Finnlly, and most important, defendants have not been prejudiced by the absence of Mr. Timofeev, Although the discovery process is nearing completion, defendants have been able to take discovery of the remaining named plaintiffs in this action, Since plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss Mr. Timofeev's claims, defendants will not be forced to defend against those claims without adequate preparation, Because Mr. Timofecv has not been produced for a deposition, plaintifts are hereby precluded from calling him as a witness at tr131. If plaintiffs are able to locate Mr, Timofecv at least sixty (60) days before the date set for trial, plaintiffs may make an application to the Court to introduce his testimony as a witness, provided that adequate time is given to defendants to depose him prior to trial.
Thus, for the foregoing rcusons, this Court respectfully recommends that Mr, Timofeev's claims be dismissed without prejudice,
3

Case 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP Document 238 Filed 02/03/2004 Page 4 of 4
Any objections to this Rep011 dnd Rccommcndation mUSI be filed with the Clerk of the COUlt, with a copy to the undersigned, within ten (10) days of receipt of this Report. Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District COlut's order. See
28 U.S.c. § 636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(e), 72(b); Small v. Secretary of Health and Human S"rvs. R92 F 20 1). 1(; (20 ('if 19R9)
The Clerk is directed to mail copies of this Report and Recommendation to the parties. SO ORDERED. Dared: Brooklyn, New York
January' i, 2004
CHER YL L. POLLAK United States Magistrate Judge
4

 
 Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report
U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:01-cv-02715-CPS-CLP

Page 1 of 29 CLOSED, MAG

Spinner, et al v. City of New York, et al Assigned to: Senior-Judge Charles P. Sifton Referred to: Magistrate-Judge Cheryl L. Pollak Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Plaintiff Michael Spinner
Plaintiff Francis Becht

Date Filed: 05/02/2001 Date Terminated: 06/09/2004 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Matthew S Flamm 26 Court Street, Suite 600 Brooklyn, NY 11242 (718) 797-3117 Fax: 718-522-2026 Email: matthewflamm@msn.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard J. Cardinale Cardinale & Marinelli 26 Court Street Suite 1815 Brooklyn, NY 11242 (718) 624-9391 Fax: (718) 624-4748 Email: RCardinale@nyc.rr.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert N. Isseks 6 North Street Middletown, NY 10940 (914) 344-4322 Email: isseks@frontiernet.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Matthew S Flamm (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard J. Cardinale (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 2 of 29

Plaintiff Aleksandra Jargilo
Plaintiff Gayner Harley a minor by her parent Hurmileen Harley
Plaintiff Corneilius Philips a minor by his parent Barbara Philips
Plaintiff

Robert N. Isseks (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Matthew S Flamm (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard J. Cardinale (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert N. Isseks (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Matthew S Flamm (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard J. Cardinale (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert N. Isseks (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Matthew S Flamm (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard J. Cardinale (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert N. Isseks (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 3 of 29

Guytho Vernet
Plaintiff Federico Tenorio
V. Defendant City of New York

represented by Matthew S Flamm (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert N. Isseks (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard J. Cardinale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Matthew S Flamm (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert N. Isseks (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard J. Cardinale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan H. Scheiner The City of New York Law Department Office of Corporation Counsel 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 (212) 788-0988 Fax: 212-788-0367 Email: ascheine@law.nyc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alan H. Scheinere Michael A. Cardozo Coeporation Counsel of the City of New York 100 Church Street, Room 3-213 New York, NY 10007 (212) 788-0988 TERMINATED: 03/30/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 4 of 29

Defendant Mayor Rudolph Giuliani

Ingrid Ursula Box Corporation Counsel of the City of NY 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 (212) 23-2492 Email: ibox@law.nyc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan H. Scheinere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
William J. Fraser Commissioner of the New York City Department of Correction ("DOC")

Ingrid Ursula Box (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan H. Scheinere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Gary M. Lanigan former Acting Commissioner of DOC

Ingrid Ursula Box (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan H. Scheinere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Bernard B. Kerik former Commissioner of DOC and the present Commissioner of the New York City Police Department ("NYPD")

Ingrid Ursula Box (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan H. Scheinere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ingrid Ursula Box (See above for address)

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 5 of 29

Defendant
Howard Safir former Commissioner of the NYPD

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan H. Scheinere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Police and Correction Officers John Does ## 1-500

Ingrid Ursula Box (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan H. Scheinere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Police Officer Defilippo 84th Precinct

Ingrid Ursula Box (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan H. Scheinere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Detective Paul Denver 62 Precinct, Shield no. 7242, tax id. no. 903779

Ingrid Ursula Box (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan H. Scheinere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Police Officer Edwin Caban Sheild # 01894, Transit District 33; in their

Ingrid Ursula Box (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan H. Scheinere (See above for address)

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 6 of 29

individual and official capacities
Plaintiff Angie Melicio
Plaintiff Alexander Timofeev
Plaintiff Troy Stephen
Plaintiff Eric Thompson
Plaintiff Yvonne James individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated

TERMINATED: 03/30/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ingrid Ursula Box (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard J. Cardinale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard J. Cardinale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard J. Cardinale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard J. Cardinale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard J. Cardinale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Captain Gary Katz Commanding and/or Executive Officer of Brooklyn Central Booking from December 1999 to the present
Defendant
Captain Thomas Russo Commanding and/or Executive Officer of Brooklyn Central Booking from December 1999 to the present

represented by Ingrid Ursula Box (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan H. Scheinere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ingrid Ursula Box (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 7 of 29

Defendant
Captain John O'Connell Commanding and/or Executive Officer of Brooklyn Central Booking from December 1999 to the present

represented by Alan H. Scheinere (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/30/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ingrid Ursula Box (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/02/2001
05/02/2001 05/23/2001
05/23/2001 05/24/2001 06/05/2001 06/05/2001 06/05/2001
06/07/2001

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT filed and summons(es) issued for Guytho Vernet, City of New York, Rudolph Giuliani, William J. Fraser, Gary M. Lanigan, Bernard B. Kerik, Howard Safir, John Doe # 1, John Doe # 2, Police and Correctio, Defilippo, Paul Denver, Edwin Caban FILING FEE $ 150.00 RECEIPT # 246038 (Villanueva, William) (Entered: 05/03/2001)

CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak (Villanueva, William) (Entered: 05/03/2001)

2 LETTER dated 5/19/01 from Richard J. Cardinale, Esq. to Judge Sifton requesting that the NYC Law Dept be required to furnish pltffs with the names of the primary John Doe dfts, and the locations where former Commissioners may be served in the event that the Court grants the Municipal dfts' application for an extension to time to respond to the complaint. (Lee, Tiffeny) (Entered: 05/23/2001)

Endorsed order on page 2 of document granting [2-1] letter application. So ordered. (Signed by Senior Judge Charles P. Sifton, on 5/21/01) {copies mailed} (Lee, Tiffeny) (Entered: 05/23/2001)

3 AMENDED COMPLAINT by Michael Spinner, Francis Becht, Aleksandra Jargilo, Gayner Harley, Corneilius Philips, Guytho Vernet, Federico Tenorio , amending [11] complaint as to Angie Melicio, Alexander Timofeev, Troy Stephen, Eric Thompson, Yvonne James. (Lee, Tiffeny) (Entered: 05/25/2001)

4 LETTER dated 5/31/01 from Gail Donoghue to Richard Cardinale all communications should be addressed to Lara Treinis (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 06/05/2001)

5 LETTER dated 5/22/01 from Lara Treinis to Judge Sifton request the court deny pltff's demand to furnish the names of "primary Joe Doe deft's" and require pltff's to properly serve all named deft's. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 06/05/2001)

6 ORDER granting city dft's application for 60 day enlargement of time, from 5/21/01 to 7/21/01, to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. See letter dated 5/21/01 from ACC Treinis to Judge Sifton. (signed by Senior Judge Charles P. Sifton, on 5/29/01) {copies mailed} (Lee, Tiffeny) Modified on 06/08/2001 (Entered: 06/08/2001)

7 LETTER dated 6/4/01 from William J. Sillery to Presiding Judge, advising the Court that they were unable to identify any record on file for dft. Corneilius Philips and have no criminal history information which may be disseminated. (DiLorenzo,

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 8 of 29

06/07/2001 06/07/2001 06/11/2001 06/11/2001
06/11/2001 07/02/2001 07/02/2001 07/03/2001 07/03/2001 07/24/2001 08/01/2001 08/09/2001 11/05/2001 11/08/2001

Krista) (Entered: 06/11/2001)
8 LETTER dated 6/4/01 from William J. Sillery to Presiding Judge, advising the Court that they were unable to identify with any record on file for Michael Spinner. (DiLorenzo, Krista) (Entered: 06/12/2001)
9 LETTER dated 6/4/01 from Willaim J. Sillery to Presiding Judge, advising the Court that they were unable to identify any record on file for Francis Becht. (DiLorenzo, Krista) Modified on 06/12/2001 (Entered: 06/12/2001)
10 LETTER dated 6/1/01 from ACC Treinis to Judge Sifton requesting that the Court reconsider its 5/21/01 endorsed order requiring City dft to furnish pltffs w/names of primary John Doe dfts. (Lee, Tiffeny) (Entered: 06/13/2001)
Endorsed order on [10-1] letter. The application for reconsideration is denied. The dft is required to disclose to pltffs all information in its possession or under its control necessary to permit the pltffs to identify in name and service the individuals described in the complaint as "John Doe defendants." (Signed by Senior Judge Charles P. Sifton , on 6/9/01) c/m (Lee, Tiffeny) (Entered: 06/13/2001)
11 ORDER setting initial conference before MJ for 7/3/01 @ 12:00. (signed by Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak, on 6/7/1) (Lee, Tiffeny) (Entered: 06/14/2001)
12 LETTER dated 7/2/01 from Richard J. Cardinale, Esq. to Judge Sifton furnishing copy of second amended complaint filed with defendants' consent. (Lee, Tiffeny) (Entered: 07/06/2001)
13 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by plaintiffs amending [3-1] amended complaint against Gary Katz, Thomas Russo, John O'Connell. (Lee, Tiffeny) (Entered: 07/06/2001)
14 Calendar entry: Initial conference held before MJ Pollak on 7/3/01. Mandatory disclosure to be completed by 8/13/01. Parties to provide written discovery by 8/13/01. Depositions to proceed. Conference set for 11/5/01 @ 11:30. (Lee, Tiffeny) (Entered: 07/10/2001)
15 STIPULATION and ORDER that the complaint is amended to addd Capts Katz, Russo and O'Connell as dfts. (signed by Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak, on 7/3/01) (Lee, Tiffeny) (Entered: 07/10/2001)
16 ANSWER to Complaint by City of New York, Rudolph Giuliani, William J. Fraser, Gary M. Lanigan, Bernard B. Kerik, Gary Katz, Thomas Russo, John O'Connell. (Rodriguez,Angela) (Entered: 07/25/2001)
17 ORDER Three day extension of time within which deft's file their answer. On ltr. dtd. 7/23/01 from Lara Treinis. ( signed by Senior Judge Charles P. Sifton , on 7/30/01) (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 08/01/2001)
18 RETURN OF SERVICE Second Amended Summons & Complaint executed as to Gary M. Lanigan, Defilippo, Paul Denver, Edwin Caban, Gary Katz, Thomas Russo, John O'Connell 7/10/01. (Jackson, Ramona) Modified on 08/09/2001 (Entered: 08/09/2001)
19 Calendar entry: Status conference held before Magistrate Pollak on 11/5/01. Plaintiffs to provide copies of file to Corp. Counsel. Depositions of plaintiffs to proceed. Order re: discovery to issue. Conference is set for 1/22/02 at 10:00. (Rodriguez,Angela) (Entered: 11/07/2001)
20 ORDER Deft's are ordered to respond to interrogatories requesting the docket

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 9 of 29

12/14/2001 12/17/2001 12/21/2001 01/24/2002
01/25/2002 01/29/2002
01/31/2002 02/06/2002 02/11/2002
02/12/2002 02/12/2002 02/12/2002 02/12/2002 02/12/2002

number and caption of any complaint fiuled under Section 1983 which involves claims relating to Brooklyn Central Booking practices filed in the years 1999 to 2001 See document for all other orders. ( signed by Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak , on 11/5/01) (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 11/08/2001)
21 LETTER dated 12/7/01 from Ingrid U Box to Richard Cardinale request you voluntarily withdraw as counsel. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 12/14/2001)
22 LETTER dated 12/10/01 from Richard J.Cardinale to Mag Pollak If the City files a motion to have this firm disqualified as counsel, we intend to request leave to cross move for sanctions under Rule 11. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 12/17/2001)
LETTER dated 12/11/01 from Ingrid U Box to Michael Hueston response to letter dtd. 12/7/01. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 12/21/2001)
23 ORDER, set scheduling conference for 9:00 1/25/02 before Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak , On ltr. dtd. 1/18/02 from Richard J Cardinale terminated past due deadlines ( signed by Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak , on 1/22/02) (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/24/2002)
25 Calendar entry:Before Mag Pollak Telephone Conf. Deft. to file disqualification motion by 2/8/02; Response 2/22/02; Reply 3/1/02. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/30/2002)
24 LETTER dated 1/24/02 from Ingrid U.Box to Mag Pollak bring issues to court's attention in advance of telephone conf. of 1/25/02 and to address discovery issues raised by pltff's counsel 1/18/02 letter in Spinner action. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/29/2002)
26 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Michael Spinner, Francis Becht, Aleksandra Jargilo, Gayner Harley, Corneilius Philips, Guytho Vernet, Federico Tenorio by Matthew Flamm, Robert N. Isseks (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/31/2002)
27 NOTICE of attorney appearance for Michael Spinner by Matthew Flamm & Robert N.Isseks (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/06/2002)
28 MOTION by City of New York, Rudolph Giuliani, William J. Fraser, Gary M. Lanigan, Bernard B. Kerik, Howard Safir, Police and Correctio, Defilippo, Paul Denver, Edwin Caban to disqualify the law firm of Cardinale, Hueston & Marinelli from representing of plaintiff. , Motion hearing [28-1] motion Motion file stamped: 2/11/02 and (Jackson, Ramona) Modified on 02/12/2002 (Entered: 02/12/2002)
29 AFFIDAVIT of NORMA KERLIN City of New York Re:in support [28-1] motion to disqualify the law firm of Cardinale, Hueston & Marinelli from representing of plaintiff. (Jackson, Ramona) Modified on 02/12/2002 (Entered: 02/12/2002)
30 AFFIDAVIT of BETH J. HOFFMAN City of New York Re:in support [28-1] motion to disqualify the law firm of Cardinale, Hueston & Marinelli from representing of plaintiff. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/12/2002)
31 Declaration of MURIEL GOODE-TRUFANT by City of New York Re:in support [28-1] motion to disqualify the law firm of Cardinale, Hueston & Marinelli from representing of plaintiff. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/12/2002)
32 Declaration of DAVID A. SCHWARTZ in support of motion to disqualify the law firm of Cardinale, Hueston & Marinelli from representing of plaintiff. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/12/2002)
33 BRIEF in support by City of New York in support of [28-1] motion to disqualify the

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 10 of 29

02/12/2002 02/13/2002 02/26/2002 02/26/2002 02/26/2002 02/26/2002 02/26/2002 02/26/2002 02/28/2002 03/08/2002 03/08/2002 03/08/2002
03/08/2002 03/14/2002

law firm of Cardinale, Hueston & Marinelli from representing of plaintiff. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/12/2002)
34 Alphabetical Appendix of Lexis Cases. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/12/2002)
35 LETTER dated 2/11/02 from Maureen Moran to Clerk of the Court motion submitted. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/13/2002)
36 MOTION by Michael Spinner et al to consolidate cases with CV 01 8264 , Motion hearing set for 4:30 3/6/02 [36-1] motion Motion file stamped: 2/25/02 and mailed/served: 2/22/02 (Jackson, Ramona) Modified on 02/26/2002 (Entered: 02/26/2002)
37 DECLARATION OF RICHARD J. CARDINALE Michael Spinner et al Re:in opposition to [28-1] motion to disqualify the law firm of Cardinale, Hueston & Marinelli from representing of plaintiff. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/26/2002)
38 DECLARATION of MICHAEL HUESTON Michael Spinner Re:in opposition to [28-1] motion to disqualify the law firm of Cardinale, Hueston & Marinelli from representing of plaintiff. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/26/2002)
39 Declaration of MATTHEW FLAMM by Michael Spinner et al Re:in opposition to [28-1] motion to disqualify the law firm of Cardinale, Hueston & Marinelli from representing of plaintiff. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/26/2002)
40 Declaration of ROBERT N. ISSEKS by Michael Spinner Re:in opposition to [28-1] motion to disqualify the law firm of Cardinale, Hueston & Marinelli from representing of plaintiff. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/26/2002)
41 MEMORANDUM by Michael Spinner in opposition to [28-1] motion to disqualify the law firm of Cardinale, Hueston & Marinelli from representing of plaintiff. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/26/2002)
47 Calendar entry: Telephone conference held before Magistrate Pollak on 2/28/02. Defendant given until 3/8/02 to submit reply papers on disqualification motion. Oral argument is scheduled before Judge Sifton on disqualification issue and motion to consolidate on 3/18/02 at 4:30. (Rodriguez,Angela) (Entered: 03/20/2002)
42 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW by City of New York re: defendants' [36-1] motion to consolidate cases with CV 01 8264, in further support of defendants' [281] motion to disqualify the law firm of Cardinale, Hueston & Marinelli from representing of plaintiff. (Guzzi, Roseann) (Entered: 03/11/2002)
43 Reply Declaration of Muriel Goode-Trufant, Coproration Counsel Re: [28-1] motion to disqualify the law firm of Cardinale, Hueston & Marinelli from representing of plaintiff., [36-1] motion to consolidate cases with CV 01 8264. (Guzzi, Roseann) (Entered: 03/11/2002)
44 REPLY DECLARATION of Ingrid U. Box, Assistant Corporation Counsel on behalf of City of New York Re: [36-1] motion to consolidate cases with CV 01 8264, in further support of defendants' [28-1] motion to disqualify the law firm of Cardinale, Hueston & Marinelli from representing of plaintiff. Exhibit A-I. (Guzzi, Roseann) (Entered: 03/11/2002)
45 LETTER dated 3/8/02 from Maureen Moran, City of New York to Judge Sifton enclosing reply papers for defendants' motion to disqualify counsel. (Guzzi, Roseann) Modified on 03/14/2002 (Entered: 03/14/2002)
46 SUR-REPLY AFFIDAVIT of Michael Hueston re: [28-1] motion to disqualify the

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 11 of 29

03/22/2002
04/01/2002 04/12/2002 04/24/2002 05/08/2002 05/22/2002
05/31/2002 05/31/2002
05/31/2002 05/31/2002 06/04/2002 06/07/2002 06/10/2002

law firm of Cardinale, Hueston & Marinelli from representing of plaintiff. (Rodriguez,Angela) (Entered: 03/15/2002)
48 ORDER on letter dated 3/15/02 from Michael Hueston to Magistrate Pollak to confirm plaintiffs are available for oral argument on 4/10/02 at 3:30. Oral argument on motion to disqualify is scheduled for 4/10/2 at 3:30 GRANTED. ( Signed by Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak, on 3/20/02 ) faxed 3/20/02. (Guzzi, Roseann) (Entered: 03/22/2002)
49 LETTER dated 3/8/02 from Maureen Moran to Judge Sifton enclosed reply papers for deft's motion to disqualify. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 04/01/2002)
50 LETTER dated 3/14/02 from Ingrid U.Box to Mag Pollak request the court strike the Sur-Reply Declaration of Michael Hueston. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 04/12/2002)
51 TRANSCRIPT of conference before Magistrate Pollak filed for dates of 4/10/02. Court Transcriber: Elizabeth Barron. (Rodriguez,Angela) (Entered: 04/25/2002)
52 LETTER dated 4/30/02 from Maureen Moran to Mag Pollak reqarding motion to disqualify. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 05/08/2002)
53 MEMORANDUM and ORDER denying [28-1] motion to disqualify the law firm of Cardinale, Hueston & Marinelli from representing of plaintiff. ( signed by Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak , on 5/20/02) to J.Sifton (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 05/22/2002)
54 LETTER dated 3/15/02 from Richard J.Cardinale to Judge Sifton request the court consider the enclosed sur-reply declaration. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 05/31/2002)
55 LETTER dated 3/14/02 from Ingrid U.Box to Mag Pollak request the court strike the Sur-Reply Declaration of Michael Hueston. We would be happy to participate in a telephone conf. on this issue should the court so require. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 05/31/2002)
56 LETTER dated dtd. 10/15/01 from Richard J.Cardinale to Mag Pollak deft's object to the proposed depositions. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 05/31/2002)
57 LETTER dated 4/16/02 from Ingrid U.Box to Mag Pollak ng deft's motion to disqualify pltff's counsel. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 05/31/2002)
58 ORDER, set status conference for 5:00 6/10/02 before Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak , terminated past due deadlines ( signed by Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak , on 6/3/02) (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 06/04/2002)
59 LETTER dated 6/4/02 from Ingrid Box to Judge Sifton confirm deft's will be filing objections to the Memo. & Order of Judge Pollak. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 06/07/2002)
65 Calendar entry:,Before Mag Pollak Discovery Conf. set scheduling conference for 11:30 10/1/02 before Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak ,By 6/14/02 pls. to serve omnibus discovery requests re:strip search issues; separate requests for each case re: individual circumstances leading to arrest; deft's response due in 30 days 7/15/02. By 6/14 def. to provide expert psych report in Habrout and lists of releases needed for each case. By 6/21/pls. to provide expert psych report in Habrout and lists of releases needed for each case. By 6/21/02 pls. to provide lists of witnesses to be deposed in each case and suggested prioroity. Depositions of pls. and defs. to

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 12 of 29

06/11/2002 06/11/2002
06/14/2002 06/14/2002 06/14/2002 06/14/2002 06/21/2002
06/21/2002 06/21/2002 06/26/2002 06/28/2002

proceed. By 6/21/02 defs. to file amended answers in individual actions, pls to serve proposed amended class action complaint, deft's to indicate if motion is necessary. Parties to raise issue of Consolidation of 3 class actions with Judge Sifton. JOSEPHS CASE. McDonalds to respond to pls. discovery requests by 6/14/02. Pl. to notify counsel as to whether pl intends to add security Co. & security guard as def. depositions held in abeyance pending ruling on motion for summary judgment. HERO parties are to agree on schedule to Courier deposition. Conf. Oct. 1,2002 @ 11:30. terminated past due deadlines (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 06/14/2002)
60 MEMORANDUM by City of New York et al in support of their objections to the District Court to the May 20,2002 order of Mag. Pollak. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 06/11/2002)
Calendar entry::Before Judge Sifton Civil Cause for motion hearing Case called. Counsel for all parties present. Court Reporter/ESR Winnie Valentine Status conf. held in all cases. The Philizaire case ( 01 CV 2738 ) and the Espeland case ( CV 015429) are ordered previously consolidated forpretrial purposes with the other cases previously consolidated (CV 01 -1165, CV 01-2511, CV 01-2715, CV 01 2739, CV 01 8264, CV 02-1039 and CV 02-2899). Both sides are to file papers in support of opposition to Mag. Judge Pollak's decision or the motion to disqualify pltff's counsel by 6/19. Oral argument will be heard 6/24/02 @ 4:30. The City deft's motion for a atay of discovery in all cases with a final decision is rendered on the motions to disqualify pltff's counsel is denied. text------------------------------------------+ (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 06/13/2002)
61 LETTER dated 5/28/02 from Richard J.Cardinale to Judge Sifton conf. for 6/11/02 @ 4:30. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 06/14/2002)
62 LETTER dated 5/29/02 from Ingrid Box to Judge Sifton request a protective order; extend the stay of discovery until motion is decided. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 06/14/2002)
63 LETTER dated 5/30/02 from Richard J.Cardinale to Counsel status conf. to be held June 11,2002 @ 4:30. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 06/14/2002)
64 LETTER dated 6/10/02 from Michael Hueston to Mag Pollak regarding discovery. Conf. held 5/15/02. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 06/14/2002)
66 MEMORANDUM by Michael Spinner in support of Magistrate Judge's Pollak's order of May 20,2002 denying deft's motion to disqualify pltff's counsel, and in support of pltff's request that the New York City Law Dept. be directed to Show Cause why it has not violated Fed Civ P.11 (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 06/21/2002)
67 CORRECTED MEMO. MEMORANDUM ( Memo. # 66) by Michael Spinner et al (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 06/21/2002)
68 Declaration of MICHAEL HUESTON dworn to June 19,2002 Michael Spinner Re: in support of Mag. Judge Pollak's order of May 20,2002 denying deft's motion to disqualify pltff's counsel. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 06/21/2002)
69 LETTER dated 6/19/02 from Richard J.Cardinale to Judge Sifton will serve and file a corrected Memo. of Law. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 06/26/2002)
71 Calendar entry:Before Mag Pollak Civil Cause for telephone conf. Defs. agree to withdraw their objections to the RR and resubmit them as a motion for reconsideration to this court. Defs. papers, including the Kellner file and additional briefing on Rule 11, to be submitted by 7/3. Pls. to serve proposed amended

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 13 of 29

07/09/2002 07/10/2002
07/11/2002 07/11/2002 07/11/2002 07/11/2002 07/19/2002
07/23/2002
07/25/2002 07/25/2002 07/26/2002

complaint consolidating class actions with Habrout by 7/12/02. Defs. to review and notify the court and counsel by 7/19/02 if objections, if so answers to all complaints due 8/2/02, if no objections answer to consolidate due 8/2/02. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/10/2002)
70 LETTER dated 7/3/02 from Ingrid Box to Mag Pollak deft's withdraw objections to 5/20/02 order denying motion to disqualify pltff's counsel. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/09/2002)
76 Calendar entry:,Before Mag Pollak Telephone Conf. Defs. objections to the court's RR are withdrawn pending motion to reconsider based on discovery of file. Pls. responsive papers to motion for reconsider due 7/10/02. Defs. reply/response due 7/26/02. set scheduling conference for 12:30 9/6/02 before Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak , terminated past due deadlines (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/12/2002)
72 MEMORANDUM by City of New York in opposition to deft's motion for reconsideration of the Order of May 20,2002 and in support of pltff's request thet NY City Law Dept. be directed to show cause why it has not violated FRP 11 (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/11/2002)
73 LETTER dated 7/3/02 from Ingrid Box to Mag Pollak deft's withdraw objections to order dtd. 5/20/02 denying deft's motion to disqualify pltff's counsel. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/11/2002)
74 LETTER dated 6/19/02 from Richard J.Cardinale to Judge Sifton will file corrected memo. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/11/2002)
75 LETTER dated 6/19/02 from Richard J.Cardinale to Judge Sifton enclosed corrected memo. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/11/2002)
ORDER, A conference to discuss discovery issues and related matters has been set for July 23, 2002 at 3:00. To facilitate the discussion, plaintiffs are directed to send a letter to the court and counsel outlining the areas to be addressed by 07/22. Defs. may respond by letter. See letterdated 07/18/02 to Hon. Cheryl L. Pollak from Ingrid Box. (signed by Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak, on 06/20/02). See 01-cv-1165 doc#48. (Lee, Stephen) (Entered: 07/22/2002)
81 Calendar entry: Case called before Hon. Cheryl L. Pollak on date of 07/23/02 for Telephone Conference. Rulings: Plaintiff to file 3rd amended compl. in Spinner along with stipulation and order convalidating Spinner, Knophe, Halrout and Micciuli under Spinner caption. Plaintiff also to send letter detailing why the other actions are not appropriately consolidated. By 07/31 plaintiff to send letter outlining discovery disputes; defs responses due 08/09. Defs to respond to discovery requests in the cases not living consolidated limited to issues not relating to strip search. (Lee, Stephen) (Entered: 07/30/2002)
76 ORDER Defs. request for extension is Granted. Pltff's are directed to re serve their papers by hand or federal express no later than 7/17/02. On ltr. dtd. 7/16/02 from Ingrid Box ( signed by Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak , on 7/16/02) (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/25/2002)
77 LETTER dated 7/16/02 from Michael Hueston to Mag Pollak regarding memo. in opposition to deft's motion for reconsideration. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/25/2002)
78 ORDER, set telephone conference for 3:00 7/23/02 before Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak , On ltr. dtd. 7/18/02 from Michael Hueston terminated past due deadlines ( signed by Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak , ) (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/26/2002)

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 14 of 29

07/26/2002 08/02/2002 08/03/2002
08/06/2002 08/06/2002 08/06/2002 08/26/2002
08/27/2002 08/29/2002 09/06/2002 09/09/2002 09/09/2002 09/10/2002 09/10/2002

79 ORDER In light of deft's receipt of Pltff's papers, pltff.s need not re serve them. On ltr. dtd. 7/16/02 from Michael Hueston. ( signed by Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak , on 7/16/02) (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/26/2002)
85 Calendar entry:Before Mag Pollak Telephone Conf. Pl. to serve defs. with class cert. and prel. inj. motion. Conf. 9/6/02 @ 12:30. to discuss. Whether defs. need discovery to respond. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 08/07/2002)
89 Calendar entry: Before Magistrate Pollak on 8/30/02 for a telephone conference. Discovery dispute resolved. Deft to produce names of officers & records in Espeland when received from precinct. Deft to supplement interrog responses in Joseph & Philizaire with a list of the officers involved. (Gonzalez, Mary) (Entered: 09/03/2002)
82 LETTER dated 7/19/02 from Robert Marinelli to Mag Pollak response to municipal deft's letter dtd. 7/18/02. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 08/06/2002)
83 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW by City of New York in further support [28-1] motion to disqualify the law firm of Cardinale, Hueston & Marinelli from representing of plaintiff. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 08/06/2002)
84 AFFIDAVIT of ALONZO DAVIS City of New York (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 08/06/2002)
87 Calendar entry:Before Mag Pollak Telephone Conf. Pls. to produce additional releases. Defs. to produce CCRB printouts & IAB and disciplinary computer printouts for named defts. in individual actions & 5 captains in class action. Deft. to produce documents-8/27/02. Parties to notify court if settlement conf. requested. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 08/27/2002)
86 ORDER, set scheduling conference for 11:00 8/26/02 before Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak , On ltr. dtd. 8/16/02 from Michael Hueston terminated past due deadlines ( signed by Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak , ) (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 08/27/2002)
88 ORDER Deft's are ordered to submit a letter by 8/30/02 explaining under what authorites the names of the officers involved in these incidents are being withheld. On ltr. dtd. 8/27/02 from Richard J Cardinale ( signed by Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak , on 8/28/02) (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 08/29/2002)
97 Calendar entry:,Before Mag Pollak Civil Conf. Oral argument in disqualification motion set scheduling conference for 3:00 9/20/02 before Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak , terminated past due deadlines (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 09/10/2002)
90 LETTER dated 8/29/02 from Ingrid Box to Mag Pollak write pursuant to court's order dtd. 8/28/02 directing deft's to explain under what authority the names of the officer's involved are being withheld. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 09/09/2002)
91 LETTER dated 8/.29/02 from Richard J.Cardinale to Mag Pollak reply to defense counsel's letter dtd. 8/29/02. Ms. Box's letter is full of misrepresentations. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 09/09/2002)
92 MOTION by Michael Spinner for class certification and a preliminary injunction , Motion hearing [92-1] motion Motion file stamped: 9/9/02 and mailed/served: 9/3/02 (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 09/10/2002)
93 AFFIDAVIT of ROBERT N. ISSEKS Michael Spinner et al Re:in support [92-1] motion for class certification and a preliminary injunction (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 09/10/2002)

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 15 of 29

09/10/2002 09/10/2002 09/10/2002 09/26/2002 10/04/2002 11/15/2002 11/15/2002 12/10/2002
12/16/2002 01/05/2003 01/07/2003 01/08/2003 01/15/2003 01/15/2003 01/15/2003 01/17/2003 01/22/2003

94 MEMORANDUM by Michael Spinner et al in support of [92-1] motion for class certification and a preliminary injunction (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 09/10/2002)
95 AFFIDAVIT of MICHAEL HUESTON Michael Spinner Re:in support [92-1] motion for class certification and a preliminary injunction (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 09/10/2002)
96 AFFIDAVIT of RICHARD J. CARDINALE Michael Spinner et al Re: in support [92-1] motion for class certification and a preliminary injunction (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 09/10/2002)
98 LETTER dated 9/9/02 from Richard J.Cardinale to Judge Sifton copy of pltff's motion for class certification. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 09/26/2002)
99 LETTER dated 9/26/02 from Robert Marinelli to Mag Pollak regarding subpoena for documents. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 10/04/2002)
100 ORDER Conf. for 11/7/02 @ 11:30. On ltr. dtd. 11/4/02 from Michael Hueston ( signed by Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak , ) (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 11/15/2002)
101 LETTER dated 11/4/02 from Ingrid Box to Mag Pollak request your honor direct the pltff's to arrive at the deft's offices on time so that we are able to make the best use of all parties time. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 11/15/2002)
102 LETTER dated 10/11/02 from Ingrid Box to MJ Pollak, requesting that the court enter a protective order preventing pltfs from seeking discovery from dfts on matters which are already within the purview of the Grubbs case. (Stipulation of Settlement from the Grubbs case attached). (Fahey, Lauren) (Entered: 12/10/2002)
103 LETTER dated 12/12/02 from Richard J.Cardinale to Mag Pollak Deft's file opposition to motion for prel. injunction 1/14/03; Reply Jan. 28,2003. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 12/16/2002)
227 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Cheryl L. Pollak : Discovery Hearing held on 1/5/2003. Deft. to confirm that Officer Bruno has separate counsel and can proceed with the deposition. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/16/2004)
104 TRANSCRIPT filed for status conf. before Mag Pollak for dates of 11/7/02 (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
105 LETTER dated 12/6/02 from Richard J.Cardinale to Mag Pollak regarding document requests. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/08/2003)
106 MEMORANDUM by City of New York et al in opposition to [92-1] motion for class certification and a preliminary injunction (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/15/2003)
107 Declaration of MAUREEN MORAN City of New York et al Re: in support of [1061] opposition pltff's motion for class certification and preliminary injunction. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/15/2003)
108 Declaration of INGRID BOX by City of New York et al Re: in support [106-1] opposition memorandum (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/15/2003)
110 MOTION by Michael Spinner to consolidate cases with 01 8264 & 02 2899 , Motion hearing set for 4:30 2/6/03 [110-1] motion Motion file stamped: 1/17/03 and mailed/served: 1/14/03 (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
109 Amended [92-1] motion for class certification and a preliminary injunction by

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 16 of 29

01/22/2003 01/24/2003
01/27/2003 01/29/2003 01/29/2003 01/30/2003 01/31/2003 02/05/2003 02/06/2003
02/10/2003 02/14/2003 02/14/2003 02/14/2003 02/19/2003 02/19/2003 02/20/2003

Michael Spinner Motion hearing set for 4:30 2/6/03 [92-1] motion for class certification and a preliminary injunction (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
111 MEMORANDUM by Michael Spinner et al in support of [110-1] motion to consolidate cases with 01 8264 & 02 2899 (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
118 Calendar entry:Before Mag Pollak Telephone Conf. Pls. agree to refile complaint deleting Officer DeFilippo as a named deft. Defs. stip. to filing complaint with that deletion obviating the motion to consolidate. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/05/2003)
112 Appendix of Lexis Cases (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
113 MEMORANDUM and ORDER For the reasons set forth above, deft's motion for reconsideration is Denied. Pltff's motion for Rule 11 sanctions is Denied. ( signed by Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak , on 1/28/03) (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/29/2003)
114 ORDER Return date for Motion for class certification & a preliminary injunction to Feb. 6,2003 @ 4:30. On ltr, dtd. 1/17/03 from Robert Marinelli ( signed by Senior Judge Charles P. Sifton , on 1/23/03) (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/29/2003)
115 LETTER dated 1/21/03 from Richard J Cardinale to Judge Sifton amended motion returnable Feb. 6,2003 @ 4:30. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
116 LETTER dated 1/17/03 from Robert Marinelli to Judge Sifton enclosed motion to consolidate. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/31/2003)
117 LETTER dated 1/24/03 from Maureen Moran to Judges enclosed an appendix of Lexis cases cited in deft's papers. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/05/2003)
127 Calendar entry:Before Judge Sifton Civil Cause for motion conf. on motion for preliminary injunction to be decided with the class certification motion. Case called. Counsel for all parties pres. Parties to file additional submissions by 3/14/03 regarding class certification. Decision RESERVED on both motions. Court Reporter/ESR Brian Ketcham (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 03/12/2003)
119 LETTER dated 1/30/03 from Richard J. Cardinale to Judge Sifton regarding consolidation motion. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
120 MEMORANDUM by City of New York in support of Their Objections to the District Court to the Jan. 28,2003 Order of Mag. Judge Pollak. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/14/2003)
121 LETTER dated 2/13/03 from Ingrid Box to Judge Sifton enclosed exhibit A & B relevant excerpts from the deposition transcript of Marcel Sarfati & Eric Thompson. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/14/2003)
122 Declaration of PETER TAMMARO in support of deft's opposition to pltff's motion for class certification. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/14/2003)
123 MEMORANDUM by City of New York in support of (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/19/2003)
124 MEMORANDUM by Michael Spinner in support of [53-1] Mag. Judge Pollak's order of May 20,2002 and Jan. 28,2003 denying deft's motion to disqualify pltff's counsel. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/19/2003)
125 LETTER dated 2/13/03 from Richard J. Cardinale to Judge Sifton response to letter dtd. 2/13/03, in which deft's supplement their papers in opposition to pltff's motion

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 17 of 29

02/28/2003 04/22/2003
05/16/2003 06/17/2003 06/17/2003 06/24/2003
06/25/2003 07/08/2003 07/08/2003 07/08/2003 07/15/2003 07/15/2003 07/15/2003 07/16/2003 07/18/2003 07/18/2003 07/18/2003

for class certification. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/20/2003)
126 LETTER dated 8/16/02 from Michael Hueston to Mag Pollak request the court schedule conf. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/28/2003)
128 ORDER Pltff's have moved for an order compelling various items of discovery. A telephone conf. having been held on April 18,2003, the following consitutes the court's rulings: see document. ( signed by Magistrate Cheryl L. Pollak , on 4/18/03) (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
129 Letter from Richard J.C ardinale to Judge Sifton Regarding motion for class certification. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 05/16/2003)
130 Letter from richard J.Cardinale to Judge Sifton Regarding the court should certify a damages class with respect to the conditions of Brooklyn Central Booking during the class period.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 06/17/2003)
Letter from Ingrid Box to Judge Sifton Regarding response to letter dtd. 6/12/03, supplementing pltff's submissions in support of class certificattion and preliminary injunction.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 06/17/2003)
132 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Cheryl L. Pollak : Status Conference held on 6/24/2003. Defs agree to provide photos as requested. Depositions to be extended; discovery cut-off extended for 30 days. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
131 Letter from Ingrid Box to Mag Pollak Regarding discovery.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 06/25/2003)
133 Letter from Maureen Moran dtd. 6/24/03 to Mag Pollak Regarding request the court endorse the proposed deposition schedule.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
134 Letter from Michael Hueston dtd. 6/24/03 to Mag Pollak Regarding concerning discovery dispute.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
135 Letter from Maureen Moran dtd. 6/24/03 to Mag Pollak Regarding response to letter dtd. 6/24/03 regarding non-party deposition.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/08/2003)
136 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on April 10.2002 before Judge Pollak. Court Reporter: Elizabeth Barron. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
137 TRANSCRIPT of Deposition trial of Cornelious Phillips. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
138 Declaration of JOSEPH COSALUZZO by City of New York. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
146 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Cheryl L. Pollak : Telephone Conference held on 7/16/2003 regarding discovery. (see document) (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 08/01/2003)
139 Letter from Richard J.Cardinale to Mag Pollak Regarding motion to disqualify.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/18/2003)
140 Letter from Ingrid Box to Mag Pollak Regarding response to Michael Hueston's letter of 11/4/02.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/18/2003)
141 Letter from Ingrid Box to Mag Pollak Regarding ask the court to reconsider its order

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 18 of 29

07/18/2003 07/31/2003 07/31/2003
07/31/2003 08/05/2003
08/05/2003
08/05/2003 08/05/2003 08/05/2003 08/05/2003 08/05/2003
08/06/2003 08/06/2003 08/06/2003 08/06/2003 08/06/2003
08/14/2003 08/14/2003

of August 26,2002.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/18/2003)
142 Letter from Maureen Moran to Mag Pollak Regarding transcript filed. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/18/2003)
143 Letter from Ingrid Box dtd. 9/10/03 to Mag Pollak Regarding court's order dtd. 9/6/03.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
144 Letter from Ingrid Box dtd. 9/10/02 to Mag Pollak Regarding deft's request a stay of all other proceedings in this action for a period of 90 days. to have an opportunity to compelete discovery.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
145 Letter from Robert N.Isseks dtd. 9/12/02 to Mag Pollak Regarding response to letter dtd. 9/10/02. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/31/2003)
147 Declaration of INGRID BOX by City of New York in support of deft's opposition to pltff's motion for class certification and preliminary injunction. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 08/05/2003)
148 REPLY MEMO. in further Support by City of New York et al of their motion for reconsideration of the May 20,2002 order denying deft's motion to disqualify pltff's counsel and in opposition to pltff's request that The New York City Law Dept. be directed to Show Cause why it has not violated Fed. R.Civ. P.11 (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 08/05/2003)
149 Declaration of ALONZO DAVIS(Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 08/05/2003)
150 Unredacted EXHIBIT (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 08/05/2003)
151 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 9/6/02 before Judge Pollak. Court Reporter: Marsha Diamond. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 08/05/2003)
152 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on Sept. 20,2002 before Judge Pollak. Court Reporter: Anthony Mancuso. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 08/05/2003)
158 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Cheryl L. Pollak : Discovery Telephone held on 8/5/2003. Next conf. 9/15/03 @ 5:00 Pltff. requested to produce documents requested in deft's letter of 7/23/03: (see document) (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 08/14/2003)
153 Letter from Richard Cardinale to Mag Pollak Regarding cases ready for trial in August.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 08/06/2003)
154 Letter from Richard J.Cardinale to Mag. Pollak Regarding request for settlement conf.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 08/06/2003)
155 Letter from Ingrid Box to Mag Pollak dtd. 7/16/.03 Regarding response to R.Cardinale's letter dtd. 7/11/03. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 08/06/2003)
156 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on Feb. 6,2003 before Judge Sifton. Court Reporter: Rosalie Lombardi. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 08/06/2003)
157 TRANSCRIPT of CIVIL CAUSE FOR CONFERENCE FOR Proceedings held on 07/16/03 before Judge Pollak. Appearances: for the plaintiff: RIchard J. Cardinale, ESQ. For Defendant: Ingrid Box, ESQ. (Sica, Michele) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
159 Letter from Ingrid Box to Mag Pollak dtd. 7/25/03 Regarding fact discovery.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 08/14/2003)
160 Letter from Michael Hueston to Mag Pollak Regarding Pltff. submit the court should

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 19 of 29

08/14/2003 08/27/2003 09/04/2003 09/04/2003 09/05/2003 09/11/2003 09/11/2003 09/11/2003 09/17/2003 09/19/2003 10/10/2003
10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003
10/28/2003 10/30/2003

close discovery on 9/30/03.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 08/14/2003)
161 Letter from Ingrid Box to Mag Pollak Regarding one week extension of CJB Report. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 08/14/2003)
162 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION For the reasons set forth above, the decision of Mag. Pollak is AFFIRMED.. Signed by Judge Charles P. Sifton on 8/22/03. (Jackson, Ramona) Copies mailed. (Entered: 08/27/2003)
163 Letter from Richard J Cardinale to Judge Sifton Regarding regarding class certification. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 09/04/2003)
164 Letter from Michael Hueston to Mag. Pollak Regarding dtd. 8/22/03 pltff's complied with court's 8/5/03 order.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 09/04/2003)
168 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Cheryl L. Pollak: Status Conference held on 9/5/2003. Pltff consent to 30 day extension to file an answer. (Drayton, Lorraine) (Entered: 09/18/2003)
165 Letter from Ingrid Box to Mag Pollak Regarding status of depositions.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 09/11/2003)
166 Letter from Richard J Cardinale to Mag Pollak Regarding we have no intention of calling at trial any of the individuals disclosed that may have witnessed the emotional distress of pltff's. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 09/11/2003)
167 Letter from Ingrid Box to Mag Pollak Regarding response to letter dtd. 8/29/03. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 09/11/2003)
172 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Cheryl L. Pollak : Discovery Hearing held on 9/17/2003. Pl. to send amended letter re: discovery issues. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 10/10/2003)
169 Letter from Desmond C. Whitaker to Mag. Pollak Regarding submitting subpoena. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 09/19/2003)
170 ORDER So ordered. On ltr. dtd. 9/15/03 from Richard J Cardinale discovery conf. provide pictures of holding cells by 10/13/03; Training records 10/13/03; Deposition of John J. Haviken 10/13/03; Police Officer Bruno 10/13/03; Conditions of confinement to Oct. 13,2003.. Signed by Judge Cheryl L. Pollak on 9/17/03. (Jackson, Ramona) Modified on 10/10/2003 (Jackson, Ramona). (Entered: 10/10/2003)
171 Letter from Ingrid Box to Mag. Pollak dtd. 9/16/03 response to letter dtd. 9/15/03. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 10/10/2003)
173 ORDER Revised Discovery Schedule. On ltr. dtd. 9/18/03 from Michael Hueston. Signed by Judge Cheryl L. Pollak on 9/18/03. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 10/10/2003)
174 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION For the foregoing reasons, leave to file a proposed consolidated complaint is Granted on Consent. Pltff's motion for class certification is Granted.. Signed by Judge Charles P. Sifton on 10/6/03. (Jackson, Ramona) Copies mailed to all parties Copy to Mag. Judge (Entered: 10/10/2003)
175 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 2/6/03 before Judge Sifton. Court Reporter: Rosalie Lombardi. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 10/28/2003)
176 reply declaration of MICHAEL HUESTON by Gayner Harley, Yvonne James,

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 20 of 29

10/30/2003 11/04/2003 11/04/2003 11/04/2003 11/04/2003 11/04/2003 11/05/2003 11/05/2003 11/05/2003 11/05/2003 11/05/2003 11/05/2003
11/06/2003
11/07/2003 11/19/2003

Aleksandra Jargilo, Angie Melicio, Corneilius Philips, Michael Spinner, Troy Stephen, Federico Tenorio, Eric Thompson, Alexander Timofeev, Guytho Vernet in support of pltff's motion for clasas certification and a preliminary injunction. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 10/30/2003)
177 Letter from Richard J.Cardinale to Judge Sifton Regarding enclosed courtesy copy of motion for a preliminary injunction.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 10/30/2003)
178 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction on behalf of pltff. class by Michael Spinner. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 11/04/2003)
179 Letter from Desmond C Whitaker to Judge Sifton Regarding request adjournment of motion to Dec. 8,2003. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 11/04/2003)
180 Letter from Ingrid Box to Mag Pollak Regarding deft's request a telephone conf. to resolve consolidation matter.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 11/04/2003)
181 RESPONSE & Objections to pltff's first set of requests to admit. by City of New York et al(Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 11/04/2003)
182 Letter from Richard Cardinale to Judge Sifton Regarding Deft's application for extension of time should be denied.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 11/04/2003)
183 Letter from Richard J. Cardinale to Judge Sifton Regarding consolidation motion.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
184 Letter from Richard J Cardinale to Judge Sifton Regarding objections to Mag. Pollak's decision.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
185 ORDER Time to comply with the document production to Oct. 15,2003. On ltr. dtd. 10/14/03 from Desmond Whitaker.. Signed by Judge Cheryl L. Pollak on 10/14/03. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
186 Letter from Desmond Whitaker to Mag. Pollak Regarding reesponse to discovery timetable directed by the court on 9/18/03.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
187 Letter from Richard J Cardinale to Mag. Pollak Regarding response to defense counsel's letter dtd. 10/31/03.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
188 Minute Entry forTelephone Conf.held before Cheryl L. Pollak : Discovery Hearing held on 11/5/2003. Def's to produce redacted and unredacted documents for in camera reviewq by 11/7/03. Deft. to notify court by end of week 11/7 re: representation of Havibenl if Corp. Counsel is representing him, they should request Dunton hearing. If not, Havihen & Bruno are given to 12/1/to find new counsel. Defs. are to provide address for subpoenas and deps. to be held mid to late Dec. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
189 MEMORANDUM in Support of Pltff's Motion For Bifurcation by Francis Becht, Gayner Harley, Yvonne James, Aleksandra Jargilo, Angie Melicio, Corneilius Philips, Michael Spinner, Troy Stephen, Federico Tenorio, Eric Thompson, Alexander Timofeev, Guytho Vernet. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 11/06/2003)
190 Letter from Desmond C.Whitaker to R.Cardinale Regarding preliminary injunction adjourned to 12/1/03 @ 4:30. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 11/07/2003)
191 MOTION to Bifurcate the liability & damages segments of cases. by Francis Becht, Gayner Harley, Yvonne James, Aleksandra Jargilo, Angie Melicio, Corneilius Philips, Michael Spinner, Troy Stephen, Federico Tenorio, Eric Thompson,

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 21 of 29

11/20/2003 12/03/2003
12/04/2003 12/05/2003 12/15/2003 12/15/2003 12/15/2003 12/15/2003
12/16/2003 12/16/2003 12/16/2003 12/16/2003 12/17/2003 12/17/2003

Alexander Timofeev, Guytho Vernet. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 11/19/2003)
192 Letter from Desmond C. Whitaker to Judge Sifton Regarding request return date for two motions to Dec. 17,2003. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 11/20/2003)
220 Letter dated 12/3/03 from Desmond C. Whitaker, Esq. to Clerk of Court enclosing: the original dfts' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to plts' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and in Opposition to plts' Motion to Bifurcate Liability and Damages, and the original accompanying Declaration of Heidi Grossman, Esq., dated 12/1/03; Declarations of Ingrid Box and Maureen Moran, both dated 1/13/03; Dfts' Memorandum in Opposition to Plts' Motions for Class Certification and for Preliminary Injuction dated 1/13/03; Declaration of Peter Tammaro, dated 2/12/03; Letter Submission of Ingrid Box, dated 2/13/03; and letter Submission of Ingrid Box, dated 2/27/03. (Nieves, Adrian) (Entered: 01/06/2004)
193 Letter from Desmond C Whitaker to Richard Cardinale Regarding motion adjourned to 12/17/03 @ 4:30.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 12/04/2003)
216 Dft's MEMORANDUM of Law in Opposition to Plts' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and in Opposition to Plts' Motion to Bifurcate Liability and Damages by City of New York. (Nieves, Adrian) (Entered: 12/29/2003)
194 REPLY MEMO. in Support re [191] MOTION for a preliminary injunction & to Bifurcate the liability & damages segments of cases. by Michael Spinner. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 12/15/2003)
195 ORDER dtd. 12/2/02 Time to file opposition papers to 12/3/03. On ltr. dtd. 12/2/03 from Desmond Whitaker.. Signed by Judge Charles P. Sifton on 12/2/03. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 12/15/2003)
196 Letter from Richard J Cardinale to Judge Sifton Regarding pltff's counsel available for oral argument on 12/11/03. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 12/15/2003)
197 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re [191] Motion for Preliminary Injunction and opposition to MOTION to Bifurcate the liability & damages segments of cases. by Edwin Caban, City of New York, Defilippo, William J. Fraser, Rudolph Giuliani, Gary Katz, Bernard B. Kerik, Gary M. Lanigan, John O'Connell, Police and Correction Officers John Does ## 1-500, Thomas Russo, Howard Safir. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 12/15/2003)
198 MEMORANDUM in Opposition by City of New York Deft's to pltff's motion for Class certification and For Preliminary Injunction. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 12/16/2003)
199 Deft's Prior Submissions of Feb. 12,2003; Feb. 13,2003; Feb. 27,2003 City of New York. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 12/16/2003)
200 Declaration of MAUREEN MORAN in support of deft's opposition to pltff's motion for Class Certification and Preliminary Injunction by City of New York et al (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 12/16/2003)
201 Declaration of HEIDI GROSSMAN by City of New York in opposition to pltff's motion for preliminary Injunction and to Bifurcate Liability and Damages. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 12/16/2003)
202 Letter from Richard J. Cardinale to Judge Sifton Regarding Second Circuit decision. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
203 Letter from Ingrid Box to Judge Sifton Regarding class certification motion.

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 22 of 29

12/17/2003 12/17/2003 12/17/2003 12/17/2003 12/17/2003 12/17/2003 12/17/2003 12/17/2003 12/17/2003 12/17/2003
12/22/2003 12/24/2003
12/29/2003
12/31/2003 01/06/2004

(Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
204 Letter from Desmond C. Whitaker to Richard Cardinale Regarding motion for preliminary injunction adjn. to Dec. 1,2003 @ 4:30. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
205 Letter from Desmond Whitaker to Judge Sifton Regarding request adjn. of motion.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
206 Letter from Richard J. Cardinale to Judge Sifton Regarding preliminary order. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
207 MOTION to Bifurcate Returnable Dec. 1,2003 @ 4:30 by Michael Spinner. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
208 Letter from Desmond C.Whitaker to Judge Sifton Regarding documents filed.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
209 Letter from Richard Cardinale to Judge Sifton Regarding reply memo. submitted.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
210 Letter from Ingrid Box to Judge Sifton Regarding deposition of Haakon Espeland. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
211 Letter from Richard J.Cardinale to Judge Sifton Regarding response to letter dtd. 2/27/03. (Jackson, Ramona)Presiding Judge: Sifton, Charles P. Referral Judge : Pollak, Cheryl L. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
212 Letter from Richard J.Cardinale to Judge Sifton Regarding motion for class certification. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 12/17/2003)
213 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Charles P. Sifton : Motion Hearing held on 12/17/2003 re [207] Counsel for all parties pres. Pltff's motion for Bifurcation of the trial is Argued. & GRANTED. Any motion for a preliminary injunction will be combined with the trial on the merits. The case is referred back to Mag. Pollak for expedited completion of any remaining discovery and trial preparation. (Court Reporter Loan Hong.) (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 12/18/2003)
217 CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT against City of New York, filed by Michael Spinner.(Nieves, Adrian) (Entered: 12/31/2003)
214 ORDER: Based on a review of the redeacted list, it appears that a number of officers who signed the roster did not include their shield number on the roster. Indeed, because of the nature of the redactions, it is impossible to discern from the redacted roster that there were more officers who attended the sessions than appear from a simple review of the shield numbers. See document for further details. Signed by Judge Cheryl L. Pollak on 12/19/03. (Nieves, Adrian) (Entered: 12/24/2003)
215 Letter dated 12/16/03 from Alan H. Scheiner, Esq. to USDJ Sifton responding to the letter of plts' counsel dated 11/25/03, requesting permission to pursue a new class action in this case challenging the conditions at Brooklyn Central booking. (Nieves, Adrian) (Entered: 12/29/2003)
218 Letter from Alan H. Scheiner to Judge Sifton dtd. 12/31/03 Regarding regarding Consolidated Complaint. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/06/2004)
219 Letter dated 12/17/03 from Richard J. Cardinale, Esq. to USMJ Pollak requesting an in-person conference before Your Honor for the purpose of setting strict deadlines for the production of certian documents and the completion of the few depositions

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 23 of 29

01/06/2004 01/07/2004 01/08/2004
01/12/2004 01/16/2004
01/16/2004 01/16/2004 01/21/2004 01/22/2004 01/26/2004 01/26/2004 01/26/2004 01/27/2004
01/29/2004 01/29/2004

that remain outstanding. (Nieves, Adrian) (Entered: 01/06/2004)
221 Letter dated 12/26/03 from Richard J. Cardinale, Esq. to USMJ Pollak requesting that the court order dfts to produce the documents bearing numbers NYC000944NYC000954 no later than 12/29/03. (Nieves, Adrian) (Entered: 01/06/2004)
222 Letter from Richard J Cardinale to Judge Sifton dtd. 12/31/03 Regarding response to ltr. dtd. 12/31/03. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/07/2004)
223 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Hearing set for 2/5/2004 04:30 PM before Senior-Judge Charles P. Sifton. Show Cause why the Consolidated Complaint filed 12/22/03, should not be dismissed Additional submissions 1/15/04 Reply 1/22/04. Response due by 1/22/2004.. Signed by Judge Charles P. Sifton on 1/7/04. (Jackson, Ramona) Copies mailed. Filed with letter dtd. 12/31/03 from Alan H. Scheiner attached. (Entered: 01/08/2004)
224 Letter from Alan H. Scheiner to Judge SIfton dtd. 12/31/03 Regarding for the foregoing reasons, we request the court strike the purported Consolidated Complaint. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/12/2004)
225 Letter from Alan H. Scheiner to Judge Sifton dtd. 1/14/04 Regarding request, for both discovery & trial purposes, that the court exclude testimony of witnesses other than class representatives who alleged that they were "strip searched". (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/16/2004)
226 Letter from R.Cardinale to Judge Sifton dtd. 1/14/04 Regarding response to letter dtd. 1/14/04. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/16/2004)
228 Letter from Richard J Cardinale to Mag. Pollak dtd. 12/29/03 Regarding non-party deposition Booking Officer Bruno. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/16/2004)
231 TRANSCRIPT of civil cause for motion before USDJ Sifton dated 12/17/03. Transcription Service: Transription Plus II. (Nieves, Adrian) (Entered: 01/26/2004)
249 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Cheryl L. Pollak : Telephone Conference held on 1/22/2004. Application to limit questions denied. Plt to depose Haviken by phone. (Nieves, Adrian) (Entered: 02/06/2004)
229 Letter from Michael Hueston to Judge Sifton dtd. 1/13/04 Regarding request the court set trial date in March 2004.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/26/2004)
230 Letter from Alan H. Scheiner dtd. 1/15/04 to Judge Sifton Regarding total number of witnesses named by pltff's is now 16.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/26/2004)
232 Letter from Alan H. Scheiner to Judge Sifton dtd. 1/23/04 Regarding The total number of witnesses named by pltff. is now 18.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/26/2004)
233 ORDER: Upon application of the plts, the New York City Police Department is ordered to produce Officer Victor Bruno for a deposition to take place on 1/21/04. Signed by Judge Cheryl L. Pollak on 1/21/04. (Nieves, Adrian) (Entered: 01/27/2004)
234 ORDER Telephone Conf. for Jan 28,2003 @ 3:00. On ltr. dtd. 1/22/04 from Alan H. Scheiner. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
245 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Cheryl L. Pollak : Status Conference held on 1/29/2004. Deposition dispute resolved. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/03/2004)

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 24 of 29

02/03/2004 02/03/2004 02/03/2004 02/03/2004 02/03/2004 02/03/2004 02/03/2004 02/03/2004 02/03/2004 02/03/2004 02/03/2004 02/03/2004 02/04/2004
02/05/2004

235 ORDER Respectfully referred to the Mag. Judge. On ltr. dtd. 1/14/04 from Alan H Scheinerthe court exclude the testimony of the witnesses other than class representatives who alleged that they were strip. searched.. Signed by Judge Charles P. Sifton on 1/22/04. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
236 ORDER Respectfully referred to Mag. Judge On ltr. dtd. 1/14/04 response to deft's letter dtd. 1/14/04.. Signed by Judge Charles P. Sifton on 1/22/04. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
237 Letter from Richard J.Cardinale to Judge Sifton Regarding pltffs. will proceed to trial on the basis of the pleadings filed in each of the four cases, rather than a single consolidated pleading.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
238 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS For the foregoing reasons, the court recommends that Mr. Timofeev's claims be dismissed without prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 2/13/2004. Signed by Judge Cheryl L. Pollak on 1/29/04. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
239 Letter from Alan H. Scheiner to Mag. Pollak dtd. 12/29/03 Regarding deposition of Mr. Timofeev,. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
240 ORDER Dismissing claims of Timofeev without prejudice. On ltr. dtd. 1/5/04. Signed by Judge Charles P. Sifton on 1/20/04. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
241 ORDER Proposed Consolidated Class Action Complaint will be formally withdrawn upon receipt of an appropriate stip. by defense counsel. On ltr. dtd. 1/10/04. Signed by Judge Charles P. Sifton on 1/22/04. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
242 ORDER DENIED without prejudice to its renewal before the Mag. Judge. On ltr. dtd. 1/13/04 from Michael Hueston request the court set a trial date now before counsel is saddled by other commitments.. Signed by Judge Charles P. Sifton on 1/22/04. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
243 Letter from Alan H. Scheiner to S.Kessler Regarding attached. find letter to Judge Sifton dtd. 1/14/04. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
244 ORDER Telephone Conf. for Jan. 28,2005 @ 3:00 On ltr. dtd. 1/22/04 from Alan H. Scheiner. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
246 ORDER Respectuflly referred to Mag. Judge. On ltr. dtd. 1/15/04 from Alan H Scheiner inform the court pltff's disclosed two additional non-party witnesses who claim to have been strip searched.. Signed by Judge Charles P. Sifton on 1/22/04. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
247 ORDER Claims of pltff. Alexander Timofeev Onbly in the above action aare dismissed.. Signed by Judge Charles P. Sifton on 1/26/04. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
248 ORDER Pltffs. will be limited to calling six nonparty witnesses to testify regarding their experiences as inmates at Brooklyn Central Booking. Pltff's have agreed to withdraw their proposed consolidated complaint, and proceed on the four complaints that have been consolidated for trial with the above. caption action.. Signed by Judge Cheryl L. Pollak on 1/27/04. (Jackson, Ramona) Copies mailed. (Entered: 02/04/2004)
Letter dated 1/21/04 from Alan H. Scheiner, Esq. to USMJ Pollak responding to plts' letter to the Court dated 1/19/04. See document 6 in 02CV2899. (Nieves, Adrian)

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 25 of 29

02/06/2004 02/10/2004 02/17/2004
02/23/2004
02/26/2004 02/26/2004 02/26/2004 02/27/2004 02/27/2004 02/27/2004 02/27/2004 03/03/2004

(Entered: 02/05/2004)
250 Letter dated 1/19/04 from Richard J. Cardinale, Esq. to USMJ Pollak advising that during the depositions of the 3 non-parties conducted on 1/16/04, defense counsel and him had several disagreements that require judicial resolution prior to the next round of depositions. (Nieves, Adrian) (Entered: 02/06/2004)
251 ORDER Pltdff's are ordered to limit their lis of witnesses to six. (see document)On ltr. dtd. 2/2/04 from Alan H. Scheiner.. Signed by Judge Cheryl L. Pollak on 2/2/04. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/10/2004)
262 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Cheryl L. Pollak : Discovery Hearing held on 2/17/2004. Telephone Conference. Plft. is directed to respond requests to admit by 2/26/04. Plft. is directed to submit a declarate in attaching documnets re Mantecar and indicating that these are all docs in counsels file and when they were received. Plf. to produce all documents in counsel & witness possession at future depos. Defts request for sanctions denied finney dep. to proceed until 3:00; he rescheduled for purpose of completion if necessary to accomodate Gangi dep. Request to extend time to take Safatz depos. granted. (Drayton, Lorraine) (Entered: 03/05/2004)
252 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Cheryl L. Pollak: Telephone Conference held on 2/23/2004. Pltff's request to substitute Webster for Peker is denied Pl.is to provide copies of Finney's record Gangi to be disposed by 2/20/04. Safarti to be disposed re 2004 arrest by 2/27/04. Pls to represent that no one else ( Pls. or witnesses) have been arrested since their depos. (Drayton, Lorraine) (Entered: 02/23/2004)
253 Letter dated 10/24/04 from Desmond Whiaker to Magistrate Pollak Regarding response to letter from Mr. Cardinale addressed to this Court dated 10/16/03. (Drayton, Lorraine) (Entered: 02/26/2004)
254 Letter from Richard J. Cardinale to Magistrate Pollack Regarding the Court should find that the deliberative process privilege does not apply and/or that the privilege have been overcome by pltffs' substantial need for the information in question. (Drayton, Lorraine) (Entered: 02/26/2004)
255 Letter from Allan H. Scheiner Asst. Corp. Counsel to Magistrate Pollack requesting an order pursuant to Rule 37(b) (2) and Rule 45(b) of the Federal Rules. (Drayton, Lorraine) (Entered: 02/26/2004)
256 Letter from Desmond Whitaker to Mag. Pollak Regarding redacted & unredacted documentsproduced to pltff's counsel.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/27/2004)
257 Letter from Michael Hueston to Mag. Pollak Regarding deft's have not been prejudiced, and their request should be Denied.. On ltr. dtd. 2/19/04 opposition to deft's request to preclude testimony of Sharene Montecier.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/27/2004)
258 Letter from Michael Hueston to Mag. Pollak Regarding Ms. Mondecier's two orders of protection.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/27/2004)
259 ORDER One document appears to be protected by the attorney-client privilage and will not be ordered disclosed. This court finds numbers have been properly redacted.. Signed by Judge Cheryl L. Pollak on 2/19/04. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 02/27/2004)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Cheryl L. Pollak : Status Conference held on 3/3/2004. Order to issue re: Tenario Pl. to provide date for Safarti depo. by

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 26 of 29

03/04/2004 03/04/2004 03/16/2004 03/16/2004
03/16/2004
03/16/2004
03/18/2004 03/24/2004 03/30/2004
03/30/2004 03/30/2004 03/30/2004 04/01/2004 04/05/2004

3/5/04. PL. to provide Finney documents today' Defs to notify court re: depos by 3/5/04. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
260 Letter from Alan H.Scheiner to Mag. Pollak dtd. 3/3/04 Regarding Pltff. Tenorio's claim should be dismissed.. (Jackson, Ramona)to Mag. Pollak (Entered: 03/04/2004)
261 ORDER It is unfortunate that this court must remind counsel to conduct themselves with the dignity required by this profession.. Signed by Judge Cheryl L. Pollak on 2/20/04. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 03/04/2004)
263 TRANSCRIPT of Conference held on March 3,2004 before Judge Pollak. Court Reporter: Aria Transcriptions. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
264 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, recommending that an order be entered dismissing with prejudice all claims against all defts nemed in the action, etc. re 217 Amended Complaint filed by Michael Spinner Objections to R&R due by 3/26/2004. Signed by Judge Cheryl L. Pollak on 3/10/2004. (Dobkin, David) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
265 Letter dated 3/5/2004 from Richard Cardinale to Mag. Pollak, requesting tha the Court inform Judge Sifton that this case is trial ready with the exception of one brief deposition, which will be held well before trial. (Dobkin, David) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
266 Letter dated 3/10/2004 from Alan Scheiner to Judge Sifton, informing the court that defts anticipate submitting a motion in the near future that would substantially narrow the scope of issues to be tried in this case. (Dobkin, David) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
267 PRETRIAL ORDER and Trial Scheduling Trial Trial June 14,2004 @ 9:30. Pretrial Conf. May 27,2004 @ 10:00.. Signed by Judge Charles P. Sifton on 3/11/04. (Jackson, Ramona) Copies mailed. (Entered: 03/18/2004)
268 Letter from Alan H. Scheiner to Mag. Pollak Regarding we see no need to continue the deposition of Kiah Finney.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
269 MOTION to Dismiss pltff's claims for injunctive relief decertifying the classFILED IN HARD COPY by Edwin Caban, City of New York, Defilippo, Paul Denver, William J. Fraser, Rudolph Giuliani, Bernard B. Kerik, Gary M. Lanigan, John O'Connell, Police and Correction Officers John Does ## 1-500, Thomas Russo, Howard Safir. (Jackson, Ramona) Modified on 3/30/2004 (Jackson, Ramona). (Entered: 03/30/2004)
270 MEMORANDUM in Support re [269] MOTION to Dismiss FILED IN HARD COPY by City of New York. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
271 AMENDED MOTION to Certify Class Returnable April 9,2004 @ 4:30 by Michael Spinner, Troy Stephen, Federico Tenorio, Eric Thompson, Alexander Timofeev, Guytho Vernet. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
272 ORDER The application is GRANTED. On ltr. dtd. 3/25/04 from Alan H. Scheiner adjournment of trial last week in July, which begins July 26, 2004. . Signed by Judge Charles P. Sifton on 3/29/04. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 03/30/2004)
273 Letter from Alan H. Scheiner to Judge Sifton dtd. 3/31/04 Regarding proposed orders. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 04/01/2004)
274 Letter from Heidi Grossman to Judge Sifton dtd. 12/13/03 Regarding request permission to submit letter to address issues raised therein. (Jackson, Ramona)

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 27 of 29

04/05/2004 04/05/2004 04/05/2004 04/05/2004 04/05/2004 04/05/2004 04/05/2004
04/05/2004 04/05/2004 04/05/2004 04/08/2004
04/15/2004
04/15/2004
04/15/2004
04/15/2004

(Entered: 04/05/2004)
275 Letter from Richard J. Cardinale to Judge Sifton dtd. 1/14/04 Regarding response to letter dtd. 1/14/04.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
276 Letter from Richard Cardinale to Judge Sifton dtd. 12/15/03 response to letter dtd. 12/13/03. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
277 Letter from Alan H. Scheiner to Judge Sifton dtd. 12/16/03 Regarding response to letter dtd. 12/16/03. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
278 Letter from Richard J.Cardinale to Judge Sifton dtd. 12/31/03 Regarding response to letter dtd. 12/31/03. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
279 Letter from Richard J.Cardinale to Judge Sifton dtd. 11/25/03 Regarding we would like to discuss issues on 12/17/03.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
280 Letter from Ingrid Box to Judge Sifton dtd. 6/13/03 Regarding response to letter dtd. 6/12/03, in support of motion.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
281 Letter from Richard J. Cardinale to Judge Sifton dtd. 1/27/04 Regarding pltff's will proceed to trial on the basis of the pleadings filed in each of the four cases, rather than through a single consolidated pleading. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
282 Letter from Alan H.Scheiner to Judge Sifton dtd. 1/23/04 Regarding additional civilian non-party "witness". (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
283 Letter from Richard J. Cardinale to Judge Sifton Regarding response to letter dtd. 1/22/04. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
284 RESPONSE in Support re [92] Motion for Class Certification and a Preliminary Injunction. filed by Michael Spinner. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
285 ORDER Deft's shall respond to both motions on or before May 3,2004. Reply papers may be filed on or before May 7,2004. The motion will be argued May 3,2004 @ 4:30. On ltr. dtd. 3/31/04 from Alan H. Scheiner.. Signed by Judge Charles P. Sifton on 4/6/04. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
286 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Returnable May 14,2004 @ 4:30 by Francis Becht, Gayner Harley, Yvonne James, Aleksandra Jargilo, Angie Melicio, Corneilius Philips, Michael Spinner, Troy Stephen, Federico Tenorio, Eric Thompson, Alexander Timofeev, Guytho Vernet. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 04/15/2004)
287 MEMORANDUM in Support re [286] MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Returnable May 14,2004 @ 4:30 by Francis Becht, Gayner Harley, Yvonne James, Aleksandra Jargilo, Angie Melicio, Corneilius Philips, Michael Spinner, Troy Stephen, Federico Tenorio, Eric Thompson, Alexander Timofeev, Guytho Vernet. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 04/15/2004)
288 Declaration of MICHAEL HUESTON re in support [286] MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Returnable May 14,2004 @ 4:30 by Francis Becht, Gayner Harley, Yvonne James, Aleksandra Jargilo, Angie Melicio, Corneilius Philips, Michael Spinner, Troy Stephen, Federico Tenorio, Eric Thompson, Alexander Timofeev, Guytho Vernet. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 04/15/2004)
289 RULE 56.1 STATEMENT re [286] MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Returnable May 14,2004 @ 4:30 by Francis Becht, Gayner Harley, Yvonne James,

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 28 of 29

04/15/2004
04/15/2004
04/15/2004
04/22/2004 05/04/2004 05/17/2004 05/18/2004 05/18/2004 05/27/2004 06/04/2004 06/09/2004 06/09/2004 06/17/2004

Aleksandra Jargilo, Angie Melicio, Corneilius Philips, Michael Spinner, Troy Stephen, Federico Tenorio, Eric Thompson, Alexander Timofeev, Guytho Vernet. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 04/15/2004)
290 Declaration of RICHARD J. CARDINALE re [286] in support MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Returnable May 14,2004 @ 4:30 by Francis Becht, Gayner Harley, Yvonne James, Aleksandra Jargilo, Angie Melicio, Corneilius Philips, Michael Spinner, Troy Stephen, Federico Tenorio, Eric Thompson, Alexander Timofeev, Guytho Vernet. (Jackson, Ramona) Exhibit 1-8 (Entered: 04/15/2004)
291 Declaration of RICHARD J. CARDINALE re [286] in support MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Returnable May 14,2004 @ 4:30 by Francis Becht, Gayner Harley, Yvonne James, Aleksandra Jargilo, Angie Melicio, Corneilius Philips, Michael Spinner, Troy Stephen, Federico Tenorio, Eric Thompson, Alexander Timofeev, Guytho Vernet. Exhibit 9-15 (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 04/15/2004)
292 Dec laration of RICHARD J. CARDINALE re in support [286] MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Returnable May 14,2004 @ 4:30 by Francis Becht, Gayner Harley, Yvonne James, Aleksandra Jargilo, Corneilius Philips, Michael Spinner, Troy Stephen, Federico Tenorio, Eric Thompson, Alexander Timofeev, Guytho Vernet. Exhibit 16-23 (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 04/15/2004)
301 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Charles P. Sifton : Status Conference held on 4/22/2004. (Court Reporter Diana Pereira.) Status conf. held. (see document) (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 06/17/2004)
293 Letter from Alan H, Scheiner to Judge Sifton dtd. 4/28/04 Regarding request the court so order stip. to decertify the Injunctive Class. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 05/04/2004)
294 ORDER Motion for summary judgment to June 23,2004. Deft's brief to June 2,2004; Reply to June 9,2004. On ltr. dtd. 5/13/04 from Alan H. Scheiner.. Signed by Judge Charles P. Sifton on 5/13/04. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 05/17/2004)
295 STIPULATION AND ORDER DECERTIFYING THE INJUNCTIVE CLASS. Signed by Judge Charles P. Sifton on 5/3/04. (Jackson, Ramona)Copies Mailed. (Entered: 05/18/2004)
296 ORDER Referred to Mag. Judge Pollak for a settlement conf. On ltr. dtd. 4/28/04 from Alan H. Scheiner . Signed by Judge Charles P. Sifton on 5/3/04. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 05/18/2004)
297 ORDER Conf. adjourned to 5/28/04 @ 10:00. On ltr. dtd. 5/14/04 from Alan H. Schneiner (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 05/27/2004)
299 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Cheryl L. Pollak : Settlement Conference held on 6/4/2004. Case Called. (Drayton, Lorraine) (Entered: 06/09/2004)
298 ORDER/Stip. of Settlement and Discontinuance. . Signed by Judge Cheryl L. Pollak on 6/4/04. (Jackson, Ramona)Copies mailed. (Entered: 06/09/2004)
ORDER /Consent To Mag., Judge for the purpose of settlement and entry of stip. & Order of Settlement and Discontinuance.. Signed by Judge Charles P. Sifton on 6/7/04. (Jackson, Ramona) Copies mailed (Entered: 06/09/2004)
300 Letter from Richard J. Cardinale to Mag. Pollak dtd. 5/13/04 Regarding enclosed article from NY Times "Civilian Complaint Review Board Cites Improper Police Strip Searches". (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 06/17/2004)

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007

Eastern District of New York - Live Database Version 3.0.5 Release - Docket Report

Page 29 of 29

07/27/2004 07/27/2004 07/27/2004 07/27/2004
06/13/2005

302 Letter from Ingrid U.Box to Michael Hueston dtd. 6/14/02 Regarding answers yet filed.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/27/2004)
303 Letter from Richard J Cardinale to Ingrid Box dtd. 7/20/02 Regarding violation of court order.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/27/2004)
304 Letter from Michael Hueston to Ingrid Box dtd. 6/20/02 Regarding answers currently due.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/27/2004)
305 Letter from Ingrid U.Box to Mag. Pollak dtd. 6/26/02 Regarding request guidance regarding an issue that has arisen with respect to filing answers.. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 07/27/2004)
306 Letter from Richard J Cardinale & Alan H Scheiner to Judge Sifton dtd. 1/22/04; 5/27/04 & subpoena dtd. 2/4/04 Regarding discovery. (Jackson, Ramona) (Entered: 06/13/2005)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

06/05/2007 11:41:23

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 21

Cost:

1:01-cv-02715-CPSCLP
1.68

https://ecf.nyed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?100920818401573-L_353_0-1

6/5/2007