Handschu, et al v. Special Serv. Div., et al
| Barbara Handschu, Ralph DiGia, Alex McKeiver, Shaba Om, Curtis M. Powell, Abbie Hoffman, Mark A. Sagal, Michael Zumoff, Kenneth Thomas, Robert Rusch, Annette T. Rubenstein, Mickey Sheridan, Joe Sucher, Steven Fischler, Howard Blatt and Ellie Benzoni |
| Special Services Division, William H.T. Smith, Arthur Grubert, Michael Willis, William Knapp, Patrick Murphy, Police Department of the City of New york and John V. Lindsay |
| 1:1971cv02203 |
| January 19, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Charles S. Haight |
| Sol Schreiber |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981 Equal Rights Under the Law |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
492
ORDER APPOINTING ADDITIONAL COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF CLASS Accordingly, the Court construes Mr. Eisenstein's letter of August 4 as a motion to appoint additional class counsel and GRANTS that motion. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (g)(1) and (4), the Court hereby APPOINTS the named attorneys as additional counsel for the Plaintiff Class in this action: Perry Grossman, Daniel Lambright, and Gideon Orion Oliver. Each is directed to enter an appearance for Plaintiffs forthwith. (And as further set forth herein.) It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight on 8/8/2023) (jca) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2023: # 1 Exhibit 1) (jca).
|
|
Filing
489
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Pursuant to paragraph VI(5)(k) of the "Revised Handschu Guidelines" [Doc. 473], the Court hereby provides NOTICE that it has received the "Fifth Annual Report" (also "Report") of the prior Civili an Representative ("CR"), Stephen Robinson. The Report, submitted by the recently-appointed CR, Muhammad U. Faridi, was prepared by former CR Robinson, and covers the period from the end of the Fourth Annual Report to the date of Attorney Faridi's appointment as CR, February 21, 2023. The Fifth Annual Report shall be maintained confidentially and under seal until further order of the Court. Within twenty-one (21) days of this Notice on or before Thursday, July 20, 2023 the New York City Police Department ("NYPD") must notify the Court in writing of any contentions or requests it makes pursuant to Section VI(5)(k) of the Revised Handschu Guidelines. In particular, the NYPD must "notify the Court (i) whe ther [the Report] contains privileged information or information that is prohibited from disclosure as set forth in VI(5)(j); (ii) if it believes such information can be protected through redaction of the document; or (iii) if it asserts the need to maintain the entire document confidentially and under seal." Doc. 473, at 14. The Court will then "adjudicate the propriety and scope of any such invocation," id. (Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight Senior United States District Judge on 6/29/2023) (ks)
|
|
Filing
487
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Accordingly, pursuant to section VI(5)(k) of the Revised Handschu Guidelines, the Court hereby directs the Clerk to file the Fourth Annual Report of the Civilian Representative on the public case docket and to serve a copy of said report by first class mail upon Class Counsel: at the address hererin. It is So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight on 1/3/2022) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (js) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. Modified on 1/4/2022 (js).
|
|
Filing
486
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Pursuant to paragraph VI(5)(k) of the "Revised Handschu Guidelines" [Doc. 473], the Court hereby provides NOTICE that it has received the "The Fourth Annual Report" ("Report") of the Civilian Repr esentative ("CR"), Stephen Robinson. The Report shall be maintained confidentially and under seal until further order of the Court. Within twenty-one (21) days of this Notice - on or before Monday, December 27, 2021 - the New York City Poli ce Department ("NYPD") must notify the Court in writing of any contentions or requests it makes pursuant to Section VI(5)(k) of the Revised Handschu Guidelines. In particular, the NYPD must "notify the Court (i) whether [the Report] co ntains privileged information or information that is prohibited from disclosure as set forth in VI(5)(i); (ii) if it believes such information can be protected through redaction of the document; or (iii) if it asserts the need to maintain the entire document confidentially and under seal." Doc. 473, at 14. The Court will then "adjudicate the propriety and scope of any such invocation," id. It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight on 12/6/2021) (kv)
|
|
Filing
483
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Pursuant to paragraph VI(5)(k) of the "Revised Handschu Guidelines" [Doc. 473], the Court hereby provides NOTICE that it has received the annual report of the Civilian Representative ("CR"), S tephen Robinson, which shall be maintained confidentially and under seal until further order of the Court. Within twenty-one (21) days of this Notice-on or before Friday, February 19, 2021, the New York City Police Department ("NYPD&qu ot;) must "notify the Court (i) whether [the report] contains privileged information or information that is prohibited for disclosure as set forth in VI(5)(j); (ii) if it believes such information can be protected through redaction of the document; or (iii) if it asserts the need to maintain the entire document confidentially and under seal." Doc. 473, at 14. "The Court shall adjudicate the propriety and scope of any such invocation," id., and in any event, the Court will proceed in the manner described in paragraph VI(5)(k) of the Revised Guidelines. (Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight on 1/29/2021) (mro)
|
|
Filing
407
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: This opinion should not be construed as determinative of any future motion by Class Counsel, in proper form and adequately supported, to expand or enlarge the NYPD's obligations to inform Class Counsel of what the N YPD is about (consistent, of course, with security considerations). The opinion does no more than explain why, on this record and procedural posture, the Court REJECTS Class Counsel's interpretation of the injunction contained in Handschu X, and ACCEPTS the interpretation contended for by Corporation Counsel. The Court sees no need to alter the wording of that injunction. If any future reader is in doubt about what its language means, this opinion should furnish sufficient enlightenment. The foregoing is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight on 11/26/2012) (mro) (Main Document 407 replaced on 11/28/2012) (mro).
|
|
Filing
380
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re:#98468 370 MOTION. For the foregoing reason, the motion of the plaintiff class for an award of attorney's fees is GRANTED. The amount to be awarded will be the subject of further submissions. Class Counsel are directed to file and serve, on or before February 12, 2010, a claim for attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount or amounts consistent with this Opinion. If Counsel claim amounts under both 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and the Court's inherent p ower, they must avoid double counting. The Court will enforce the Second Circuit's requirements for court- ordered compensation for attorneys: Hereafter, any attorney - whether a private practitioner or an employee of a non-profit law office - w ho applies for court-ordered compensation in this Circuit for work done after the date of this opinion must document the application with contemporaneous time records. These records should specify, for each attorney, the date, the hours expended, and the nature of the work done. New York State Association/or Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 711 F.2d 1136, 1148 (2d Cir.1983). The NYPD and Corporation Counsel are directed to file and serve opposing papers as to the amounts claimed on or before February 26, 2010. Class Counsel may, if so advised, file and serve reply papers on or before March 5, 2010. If the Court desires oral argument, counsel will be notified. The motion of the plaintiff class for additional equitable relief is GRANTED in the manner specified in Part II.D. of this opinion. It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight on 1/19/2010) (tve) Modified on 1/21/2010 (ajc).
|
|
Filing
378
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER#97220: In these circumstances, the following questions arise: (1) Do Corporation Counsel contend that they were under no obligation whatsoever to inform Class counsel and the Court that as of April 13, 2007 Interim Order 47 was no longer in effect, while conducting the litigation as if it was? (2) If Corporation Counsel makes the contention referred to in Question I, upon what factual circumstances, practices or procedures, rules or legal authorities, or other source s do they rely? (3) Was any consideration given by the Corporation Counsel or other NYPD or City officers or employees as to whether Class Counsel and the Court should have been told at the time that Interim Order 22 had replaced Interim Order 47 in April 2007, or did that non-disclosure simply occur without consideration or discussion?.(4)If consideration was given or discussions held, what were the details? (The Court does not at the present see the need to reopen the record for the presentati on of further affidavits or evidentiary material; Corporation Counsel may address these inquires at the oral argument in the form of representations made as an officer of the Court)While these questions are posed to counsel for one side or the other, counsel for both parties are free to comment upon any of them at the hearing. The foregoing is Ordered. So Ordered (Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight on 3/13/09) (js) Modified on 3/16/2009 (mro).
|
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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
