Robinson v. East Carolina University et al

Filing 21

ORDER denying without prejudice 4 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order; granting [] Motion for Extension of Time to Answer MAGMutual Insurance Company answer due 10/17/2017. Counsel is reminded to read the order in its entirety for critical deadlines and information. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 9/1/2017. (Collins, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
EASTERN DIVISION
NO. 4:17-CV-112-FL

BARBARA L. ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY; JOHN
MARK WILLIAMS M.D., in his
individual capacity; MARK D.
IANNETTONI M.D., in his individual
capacity; JODY COOK MS, RN, CPHRM,
in her individual capacity; MAGMUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a
MAGMutual Insurance Agency, LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter came before the court today for telephonic status conference pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 16, at which counsel Mary-Ann Leon appeared for plaintiff; Stephanie Ann
Brennan appeared for defendant East Carolina University (“ECU”) and appeared upon the court’s
request as courtesy counsel on behalf of the individual capacity defendants; and Jonathan A.
Berkelhammer and Kelly Margolis Dagger appeared for defendant MAGMutual Insurance Company
(“MAGMutual”). The court memorializes herein determinations made at conference.
A.

Pending Motion
In light of discussion at conference, as well as imposition of the preliminary discovery and

briefing schedule noted herein, plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction (DE 4) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

B.

Notice of Appearances
As discussed at conference, counsel for ECU presently is evaluating potential representation

of the individual capacity defendants, John Mark Williams, Mark D. Iannettoni, and Jody Cook.
Counsel for ECU is DIRECTED to file a notice of appearance in the event of such representation
by September 5, 2017.
C.

Extension of Time to Answer
Defendant MAGMutual moved at conference for extension of time to answer. Upon consent

of plaintiff, the motion is GRANTED and the deadline for MAGMutual to answer is October 17,
2017, consistent with the answer deadline of defendant ECU.
D.

Preliminary Discovery
1.

The parties at conference agreed to a limited period of preliminary discovery focused
on certain issues bearing on potential amended motion for preliminary injunction,
discussed herein. The parties shall propound and serve electronically written
discovery on or before September 6, 2017. Responses thereto shall be served
electronically by September 15, 2017.

2.

In the event of a dispute concerning discovery, the parties are DIRECTED to make
good faith effort between the parties to resolve the matter. In the event of continued
dispute, the complaining party shall convene a conference among the parties and this
court by telephone through the office of the case manager, at [phone]. The
party convening the conference shall send via facsimile transmittal directed to the
case manager at [phone], or by email to the case manager as directed, the
submissions in discovery most directly bearing on the particular dispute, for the

2

court’s review in advance of telephonic conference, and suggest several alternatives
dates and times for conference, as agreed to by all parties.
E.

Protective Order
1.

Discovery in this case may be governed by a protective order. Counsel shall confer
and then submit a jointly proposed protective order as soon as is practicable, no later
than September 13, 2017.

2.

A jointly proposed protective order must include, in the first paragraph, a concise but
sufficiently specific recitation of the particular facts in this case that would provide
the court with an adequate basis upon which to make the required finding of good
cause for issuance of the protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(c).

3.

Any proposed protective order must set out the procedure for filing under seal
confidential documents, things, and/or information, pursuant to the requirements of
Stone v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., 855 F.2d 178, 180-181 (4th
Cir. 1988). Specifically, a proposed protective order shall include the following
language: “Each time a party seeks to file under seal confidential documents, things,
and/or information, said party shall accompany the request with a motion to seal and
a supporting memorandum of law specifying (a) the exact documents, things, and/or
information, or portions thereof, for which filing under seal is requested; (b) where
it is necessary for the court to determine the source of the public’s right to access
before a request to seal may be evaluated, whether any such request to seal seeks to
overcome the common law or the First Amendment presumption to access; (c) the

3

specific qualities of the material at issue which justify sealing such material, taking
into account the balance of competing interests in access; (d) the reasons why
alternatives to sealing are inadequate; and, (e) whether there is consent to the motion.
Finally, in addition to the motion and supporting memorandum, said party must set
out such findings in a proposed order to seal for the court.”
4.

Before ruling on any motion to seal the court will give the public notice of the
motion and a reasonable opportunity to challenge it. While individual notice is
unwarranted, the court will docket the motion reasonably in advance of deciding the
issue, or, where applicable, the court will notify persons present in courtroom
proceedings of the motion. The court will rule favorably upon any motion to seal
only after carefully weighing the interest advanced by the movant and those interests
favoring public access to judicial documents and records, and only upon finding that
the interests advanced by the movant override any constitutional or common law
right of public access which may attach to the documents, things, and/or information
at issue.

5.

The parties are directed to Section T of the court’s Electronic Case Filing
Administrative

Policies

and

Procedures

Manual,

available

http://www.nced.uscourts.gov/pdfs/cmecfPolicyManual.pdf,

for

online

at

information

regarding how to file and serve sealed documents through the court’s Case
Management / Electronic Case Filing system (“CM/ECF”).
F.

Amended Motion and Briefs
Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file an amended motion for preliminary injunction on or before

4

September 22, 2017, including specification of the injunctive relief sought and the defendants
against whom the relief is sought. Defendants may file responses, if any, on or before September
29, 2017. Should defendant ECU and/or the individual capacity defendants deem response
unnecessary, notice promptly shall be filed indicating no intent to file response. Plaintiff’s reply,
if any, shall be filed by October 4, 2017. The parties may specify in their briefs whether they seek
hearing on any issues raised by the amended preliminary injunction motion, and, if so, whether they
seek to introduce evidence at such hearing.
G.

Case Scheduling
After all defendants have appeared and answered, the court will enter an initial order

regarding planning and scheduling that will set forth further case deadlines and requirements.
SO ORDERED, this the 1st day of September, 2017.

_____________________________
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge

5