Cambridge University Press et al v. Patton et al

Filing 204

RESPONSE in Opposition to 203 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiffs' 202 Motion to Exclude the Putative Expert Testimony of Kenneth D. Crews filed by Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, Inc., Sage Publications, Inc.. (Rains, John) Modified on 4/26/2010 in order to update docket text (ank).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, et al., Plaintiffs, -vs.MARK P. BECKER, in his official capacity as Georgia State University President, et al., Defendants. PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUTATIVE EXPERT TESTIMONY OF KENNETH D. CREWS Plaintiffs' Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, Inc., and Sage Publications, Inc. respectfully request that this Court deny Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude the Putative Expert Testimony of Kenneth D. Crews. As Defendants note in their motion, Plaintiffs served Defendants by hand delivery with the Crews Daubert motion on April 13, 2010. Under the rules of this Court, Defendants' response is therefore due on April 27, 2010. Although Defendants' Motion offers no justification as to why Defendants should receive
762271.1

Civil Action File No.1:08-CV-1425-ODE

twice the time (twenty-eight days total) to respond to the motion as would otherwise be allowed under this Court's rules, Plaintiffs consent to a short extension of Defendants' time to respond to the Crews Daubert motion until April 30, 2010. Any further extension is wholly unjustified. As of Monday, April 26, 2010 the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment will be fully briefed. Given the Defendants' reliance on the testimony of Dr. Crews in their response to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, requiring Defendants to respond to the Crews Daubert motion on April 30, 2010 will ensure that the motion is also fully briefed as the Court considers the related summary judgment submissions. Moreover, Plaintiffs note that Defendants served their own motion to exclude one of Plaintiffs' expert witnesses shortly before initial summary judgment briefs were due. See Dkt. No. 131. That motion, which was also served by hand delivery and which Plaintiffs' timely responded to in fourteen days as provided by this Court's rules, (Dkt. No. 135), was filed at a time when Plaintiffs were preparing a sixty-page initial summary judgment brief and an extensive statement of undisputed material facts. Plaintiffs were able to respond to that motion within the time permitted by this Court's rules while simultaneously preparing a far larger filing for presentation to the Court. There is no reason that Defendants,
762271.1

2

represented by the eight attorneys who have appeared as counsel of record in this case, cannot prepare a twenty-five page response to the Crews Daubert motion while also finalizing a twenty-five page reply brief on Defendants' motion for summary judgment.1 Defendants' motion offers no hint as to what "investigation" Defendants need to undertake to complete their response or what extenuating circumstances warrant the extended response time they request. Defendants' motion should therefore be denied. Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of April, 2010. /s/ John H. Rains IV Edward B. Krugman Georgia Bar No. 429927 John H. Rains IV Georgia Bar No. 556052

BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street NW Suite 3900 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] Defendants note that this Court has already extended the parties' summary judgment briefing schedule by mutual consent. The parties have already had far longer to prepare and file summary judgment briefs than is contemplated by this Court's rules. No further extension is warranted. 3

1

762271.1

R. Bruce Rich (pro hac vice) Randi Singer (pro hac vice) Jonathan Bloom (pro hac vice) Todd D. Larson (pro hac vice) WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10153 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiffs

762271.1

4

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(D), I hereby certify that this document complies with the font and point selections set forth in Local Rule 5.1. This document was prepared in Times New Roman 14 point font. /s/ John H. Rains IV John H. Rains IV

762271.1

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day filed PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUTATIVE EXPERT TESTIMONY OF KENNETH D. CREWS by CM/ECF filing system which will automatically send e-mail notification of such filing to the following attorney of record: Anthony B. Askew, Esq. Stephen M. Schaetzel, Esq. Katrina M. Quicker, Esq. John P. Sheesley, Esq. Kristen A. Swift, Esq. C. Suzanne Johnson, Esq. Laura E. Gary, Esq. King & Spalding LLP 1180 Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Mary Jo Volkert, Esq. Assistant S. Attorney General 40 Capitol Square Atlanta, Georgia 30334 This 23rd day of April, 2010. /s/John H. Rains IV John H. Rains IV

762271.1