250 WEST 55TH STREET

NEW YORK, NY 10019-9601

TELEPHONE: 212.468.8000
FACSIMILE: 212.468.7900
WWW.MOFO.COM

MOR R I S ON & F OE R S T E R L L P
B E I J I NG, B E R L I N, B R US S EL S , DE NV ER ,
HONG KONG, L ONDON, L OS ANGEL E S ,
NE W Y OR K, NOR T HE R N V I R GI NI A,
P AL O AL T O, S AC R AME NT O, S AN DI E GO,
S AN F R ANC I S C O, S HA NGHA I , S I NGAP OR E,
T OKY O, WAS HI NGT ON, D. C .


ny-1148372
Writers Direct Contact
212.468.8203
JLevitt@mofo.com





June 25, 2014

VIA ECF AND HAND DELIVERY
Honorable Kimba M. Wood
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007
Re: Jones, et al. v. Schneiderman, et al., Case No. 11 Civ. 8215 (KMW)

Dear Judge Wood:
We are counsel to Plaintiffs and write in response to the letter of John Schwartz filed today.
Plaintiffs oppose Defendants request for an extension of the Courts summary judgment schedule.
In light of Rule 56s 30-day mandate and this Courts Individual Practices, Plaintiffs filed their Rule
56.1 statement on June 2, 2014. (ECF No. 78.) Since depositions ended on April 29, Plaintiffs have
been working diligently on their summary judgment brief and the marshalling of evidence, and are
prepared to adhere to the schedule Your Honor set. (ECF No. 82.)
None of the reasons provided by Defendants for an extension are persuasive. People come and go
from offices and witnesses are always hard to pin down, but that does not justify extending a Court-
ordered schedule. That is particularly true here where discovery closed on May 2, which means the
parties will have had two full months to prepare and file their motions for summary judgment on
July 3. Even crediting the Defendants erroneous claim that discovery did not close until May 30
(because of a delayed third party production), the Courts July 3 deadline for filing motions for
summary judgment is more than Rule 56s 30-day timeline and more than enough time to gather
any necessary evidence. Defendants request of an additional month to file their motion for
summary judgment is unreasonable. That would provide Defendants 90 days from the close of
discovery (or 60 days from Defendants unilaterally declared close of discovery). And, notably,
Defendants have had Plaintiffs Rule 56.1 statement for nearly a month already; thus their claim
that they will not have sufficient time to respond to Plaintiffs 56.1 statement rings hollow.
If the Court grants any additional time, which Plaintiffs submit is unwarranted, Plaintiffs request
that (1) both parties be granted equivalent extensions (shorter than that requested by Defendants)
and (2) Defendants should be required to file their Rule 56.1 statement by June 30the day they
asserted in their June 5 letter was their deadline. (See ECF No. 80.)
Case 1:11-cv-08215-KMW-GWG Document 84 Filed 06/25/14 Page 1 of 2
Honorable Kimba M. Wood
June 25, 2014
Page Two
ny-1148372
Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny Defendants request for an extension (filed a week
after the Court ordered the schedule) and require that all parties adhere to Your Honors schedule.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jamie A. Levitt
Jamie A. Levitt
cc: John M. Schwartz, Esq., counsel for Defendants
Lisa DAlessio, Esq., counsel for Defendants
Barry Friedman, Esq., counsel for Plaintiffs
Case 1:11-cv-08215-KMW-GWG Document 84 Filed 06/25/14 Page 2 of 2