SIEGEL TEITELBAUM & EVANS, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW

260 MADISON AVENUE, 22ND FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10016

TELEPHONE

(212) 455-0300

FACSIMILE

(212) 448-0066

December 21, 2015

BY ECF

Honorable Steven M. Gold

United States Magistrate Judge

Eastern District of New York

225 Cadman Plaza East

Brooklyn, NY 11201

Re: Amezquita, et al. v. The City of New York et al., 15-cv-0303 (ILG) (SMG))

Your Honor:

This firm and Eric R. Bernstein, P.C. represent Plaintiffs in the above-referenced matter.

We write in response to the Order, issued on December 20, 2015, requiring the parties to submit

a letter identifying any issues that we have been unable to resolve after meeting and conferring.

Counsel for all Defendants except Joseph Degan and Pedro Vallecillio does not consent to this

letter.

The parties met and conferred on December 18, 2015, and were able to resolve several of

the outstanding discovery issues. However, two issues remain unresolved. First, initially in

Plaintiffs discovery requests, and then again on a call between the parties, Plaintiffs counsel had requested that Defense counsel confer with her clients and specifically search for any NYPD

correspondence, memoranda, reports, emails, radio logs, transcripts and use of force rules.

Plaintiffs counsel believe that, since the incident at issue was discussed in the news media, certain officials at the NYPD might have written correspondence about it. Defense counsel takes

the position that she will search for the requested documents only if Plaintiffs can identify the

NYPD officials who might have written or received such documents. Plaintiffs counsel takes the position that it is Defendants obligation to search for the documents more broadly, and because Plaintiffs are not privy to the NYPDs internal operation and the personnel involved regarding the incident Defense counsel and her client are in a better position than Plaintiffs and their counsel to know which NYPD officials might have documents related to this request.

Second, Plaintiffs counsel have requested that Defense counsel confer with her client and specifically search for documents related to the May 19, 2015 surveillance of two plaintiffs

which Mr. Siegel had called to Defense counsels attention soon after the surveillance occurred. This request was also contained in Plaintiffs Document Request Nos. 39 and 40.

Case 1:15-cv-00303-ILG-SMG Document 47 Filed 12/21/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 183

Defense counsel takes the position that these two document requests, and any surveillance of

Plaintiffs by the NYPD, are outside the scope of discovery. Plaintiffs counsel takes the position that the surveillance had no legitimate basis and constitutes retaliation. In Plaintiffs view, acts of retaliation would compound the unlawful conduct alleged in the complaint, might be seen by a

jury as an attempt to intimidate Plaintiffs and cause them to discontinue pursuing their rights in

this Court and may substantiate the claim for punitive damages. Plaintiffs submit this discovery

request fits squarely within the parameters or FRCP 26(b) as it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/

Norman Siegel

Herbert Teitelbaum

Sharon Sprayregen

cc: Beth J. Hoffman (by ECF)

Attorney for Defendants City of New York, Gary Bonavita, Delossantos, Elvis Merizalde,

Frank Rodriguez, Richard Rodriguez, Eric Roome, and Stephen Spataro

Mitchell Garber (by ECF)

Attorney for Defendants Joseph Degan, and Pedro Vallecillo

Case 1:15-cv-00303-ILG-SMG Document 47 Filed 12/21/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 184