Franklin v. Doe

Document and posture

The provided text is a letter from defense counsel to Judge Koeltl. It asks the court to direct the plaintiff to withdraw a motion to strike the defendant’s response to the plaintiff’s factual statement and Exhibit K, which was attached to a declaration supporting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The text does not include a judicial order or a ruling on those requests.

Arguments described in the letter

The letter says the plaintiff filed an opposition to summary judgment and a statement under Local Civil Rule 56.1. According to the letter, the plaintiff did not submit documentary evidence supporting allegations in that statement and challenged the completeness of an earlier complaint filed with the New York State Division of Human Rights.

The defense argued that attaching the complete complaint as Exhibit K was necessary to respond to those challenges. It said the complaint and its attachments had been produced during discovery, although the attachments were not in sequential order. The defense further argued that the plaintiff could not have been surprised or prejudiced because the document was the plaintiff’s own complaint.

The letter also argued that reply statements under Local Rule 56.1 are permitted in the district and that the defendant’s responses directly addressed alleged deficiencies in the plaintiff’s opposition and factual statement. It characterized the motion to strike as frivolous and requested that it be withdrawn.

Disposition

The provided text contains no disposition. It does not say that Judge Koeltl granted, denied, or otherwise decided the motion to strike, the request to withdraw it, or the pending motion for summary judgment. The document’s caption and the supplied case name also do not match: the text identifies the matter as Diane Franklin v. NYCT-MTA, while the supplied metadata identifies it as Franklin v. Doe.