United States of America v. City of New York

REPLY in Opposition re Response in Opposition to Motion, regarding the City's July 20, 2012 letter

E.D.N.Y.July 25, 2012

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division DLK:MLB:EKB:JMS:AKT:BS:KEL DJ 170-51-358 Employment Litigation Section - PHB 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington DC 20530 www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp July 25, 2012 Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201 Re: United States v. City of New York, et al., 07-CV-2067 (NGG)(RLM) Dear Judge Garaufis: The United States submits this letter in response to the City of New York’s July 20, 2012 letter (Dkt. 931), in which the City requests that the Court strike the United States’ letter filed on July 13 (Dkt. 925). The City’s request should be denied because it serves no purpose. The United States submitted its July 13 letter to notify the Court and the parties of the United States’ position regarding the Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ Motion to Reconsider Order on Fringe Benefits (Dkt. 912). The United States did so because it anticipated that the Court, as well as the parties, would want to know this information. The United States did not present any additional arguments related to the Plaintiffs- Intervenors’ motion to which the City would then need to respond.1 Instead, the United States simply stated its position on the motion. Moreover, in its request to strike the United States’ letter, the City did not allege, much less prove, that it has suffered any prejudice as a result of the United States’ statement of its position regarding the Plaintiffs-Intervenors’ motion. For these reasons, the City’s request should be rejected. 1 In its letter, the United States also alerted the Court, the Special Masters, and the parties to an issue related to the timing of discovery related to fringe benefits. The United States did not seek a ruling from the Court or the Special Masters on this issue but, rather, sought to notify the parties of this issue so that it could be the subject of future discussions among the parties and the Special Masters. Case 1:07-cv-02067-NGG-RLM Document 934 Filed 07/25/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 22898 2 Sincerely, /s/ Eric K. Bachman Senior Trial Attorney (202) 305-7883 Civil Rights Division United States Department of Justice /s/ Elliot M. Schachner Assistant U.S. Attorney Eastern District of New York (718) 254-6053 Case 1:07-cv-02067-NGG-RLM Document 934 Filed 07/25/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 22899