Zimmerman et al v. Poly Prep Country Day School et al
Case Number: 1:2009cv04586
Filed: October 26, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office: Racketeer/Corrupt Organization Office
Presiding Judge: Frederic Block
Presiding Judge: Cheryl L. Pollak
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
August 28, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 310 MEMORADUM and ORDER: All RICO claims against Poly Prep are dismissed. As to the remaining defendants, the RICO claims of all plaintiffs except Culhane and Henningsen are dismissed. In addition to the RICO claims of Culhane and Henningsen, the Title IX claims of all plaintiffs also survive, subject to resolution of Poly Preps statute of limitations defense. As for the state-law claims, Hiltbrands fraud claim and Paggiolis claims are dismissed. The claims for negligence (both for negligent reten tion and supervision and for breach of a fiduciary duty, see supra n.5) of all plaintiffs except Paggioli survive, also subject to resolution of Poly Preps statute of limitations defense. In respect to that defense, the issue of whether the defendant s should be equitably estopped from asserting the defense to the Title IX and state-law negligence claims is for the Court, not a jury. Because resolution of the equitable estoppel issue against plaintiffs would terminate all claims save Culhanes and Henningsens RICO claims, it should be addressed as soon as possible to avoid potentially superfluous litigation. As noted, the parties have already engaged in discovery on equitable estoppel, and have previously been instructed by the Court more th an two months ago to complete that process. The parties are directed to appear on September 14, 2012, at 10:30 a.m., to set a date for an evidentiary hearing on the equitable estoppel issue. See attached decision for details. Terms motions: 207 , 208 , 283 & 298 . Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 8/28/2012. (Innelli, Michael) (Main Document 310 replaced on 8/28/2012) (Innelli, Michael).
June 6, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 265 MEMORANDUM and ORDER (REDACTED) re 144 159 233 234 259 Plaintiffs' motion for additional discovery pursuant to the crime-fraud exception is granted in part and denied in part. The Court Orders defendants to produce the following documents for in camera review from defendants revised privilege log: 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 44. The Court also Orders OMelveny & Myers, LLP to prepare a privilege log as require d by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a). Defendants are Ordered to produce the documents designated for in camera review and O'Melveny's privilege log on or before 6/15/12. The Court reserves decision on plaintiffs' motion for sanct ions for fraud on the Court and Orders the parties to appear for an evidentiary hearing scheduled to begin 7/19/12. The parties are further Ordered to exchange witness lists on or before 6/15/12.Defendants' requests for sanctions are denied. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak on 6/5/2012. (Caggiano, Diana)
June 30, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 132 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 124 Motion to Compel. As explained in detail in the attached Order, the Court Orders as follows: 1) plaintiffs' request for a more specific privilege log and an in camera inspection of defend ants' withheld documents is denied; 2) plaintiffs' request for production of POLY 0199 in un-redacted form is denied; however, defendants shall produce this document for in camera review by July 8, 2011; 3) plaintiffs' mo tion with respect to Harry Petchesky's interview notes is denied; 4) plaintiffs' motion for sanctions relating to the Board of Trustees Minutes is denied; 5) plaintiffs' request for fees and costs is denied; 6) all future motions or le tter motions in this case shall be limited to an initial motion, a response, and a reply; any additional responses or replies filed without this Court's permission will not be considered; and 7) all future letter motions must be prefaced by a st atement that there has been compliance with Local Rule 37.3(a). The parties are also reminded that the next conference in this case is scheduled for July 15, 2011 at 11:00 AM. SO Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak on 6/30/2011. (Berger, Melissa)
April 13, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 105 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 61 and 64 Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions. As detailed in the attached Order, the Court finds that plaintiffs' have sufficiently satisfied all three of the required elements of the spoliation sanctions test. The Court finds that the defendants in this case have acted negligently, at best, in not preventing the spoliation of relevant evidence, namely the Sheridan investigation notes. In order to restore the plaintiffs to the position the y would have been in but for defendants' spoliation, or "to alleviate the harm suffered" by the plaintiffs, the Court imposes the following sanctions: 1) defendants are to produce, by May 31, 2011, any additional discovery that defendants have within their control that, under the correct interpretation explained herein, should have been produced to plaintiffs as a result of this Court's May 25, 2010 Order; 2) plaintiffs are granted permission to take the depositions of all living individuals interviewed by Mr. Sheridan, as well as the depositions of Mr. Sheridan and of Michael Junsch and James Esposito, with all depositions to be completed by May 31, 2011; 3) plaintiffs are also granted permission to contac t the additional victims whose names have been disclosed to plaintiffs' counsel; 4) defendants are Ordered to review the privilege discussion herein, to reevaluate their privilege log, and to provide plaintiffs with an updated privilege log alon g with the updated production required by this Order; 5) plaintiffs are granted permission to file a Second Amended Complaint, due on or before June 13, 2011; and 6) defendants are Ordered to pay plaintiffs' reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees and costs, incurred in connection with the filing of this motion as explained herein; plaintiffs to submit an affidavit in support of these fees and costs by May 13, 2011. All other requested sanctions are denied as expl ained herein. Plaintiffs' request for a finding that the defendants' have committed fraud on the Court and for an additional award of sanctions is also denied. Given that the Court has Ordered additional discovery and the filing of an Amen ded Complaint, the briefing schedule for the defendants' motion to dismiss will remain stayed. The parties are Ordered to appear for a status conference on June 21, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. SO Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak on 4/13/2011. (Berger, Melissa)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Zimmerman et al v. Poly Prep Country Day School et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?