MCFADYEN et al v. DUKE UNIVERSITY et al

Filing 238

RESPONSE in Opposition re #232 MOTION to Consolidate Discovery filed by BRECK ARCHER, RYAN MCFADYEN, MATTHEW WILSON. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Charts, #2 Exhibit Duke Rule 26(f) Supplemental Report)(SPARKS, STEFANIE)

EXHIBIT 1
McFadyen, et al. v. Duke Univ., et al
1:07-CV-953

Present Causes of Action
Fraud and Conspiracy to Defraud/ Fraud

COMMON

Constructive Fraud Through Abuse of
Confidential Relationship
Negligent Supervision of Duke Professors and
Employees
Breach of Contract

Present Duke Defendants
Graves
Hendricks
Dean
Duke
Drummond
Smith
Brodhead
Trask
Wasiolek
Duke University

COMMON
COMMON
COMMON
COMMON

COMMON

Future Causes of Action
Search and Seizure in Violation of 42 U.S.C.
COMMON
1983 & Conspiracy (NTO)/ Violation of and
Conspiracy to Violate Fourth Amendment under
42 U.S.C. 1983 – DNA Samples
Search and Seizure in Violation of 42 U.S.C.
1983 & Conspiracy (McFadyen Search)
Common Law Obstruction of Justice and
Conspiracy/ Obstruction of and Conspiracy to
Obstruct Public Justice
Negligent Hiring, Retention, Supervision,
Training, & Discipline (SANE)1

COMMON

Negligent Supervision of Employees Arico and
Levicy

Future Duke Defendants
Levicy
Brodhead2
Duke University Health Systems, Inc.
Steel
Dzau
Burness
Duke University

COMMON
COMMON

COMMON

1
 Negligent Hiring, Retention, Supervision, Training, & Discipline in McFadyen should not be considered in “common”
with Negligent Supervision of Employees Arico and Levicy in Carrington because the causes of action are distinct in their
respective theories of liability. Plaintiffs’ cause of action in McFadyen is much broader than the Count alleged in
Carrington.
Defendant Brodhead is not technically an in “common” defendant because unlike in Carrington, Plaintiffs in McFadyen
are currently stayed from proceeding with discovery pertaining to the Count Brodhead is named. Furthermore, he is not
named in any of the Counts stayed in Carrington.   

2