MCFADYEN et al v. DUKE UNIVERSITY et al

Filing 276

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #271 MOTION for Protective Order on Confidentiality and Prospective Sealing Order by BRECK ARCHER, RYAN MCFADYEN, MATTHEW WILSON. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(SPARKS, STEFANIE)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

RYAN MCFADYEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

1:07-CV-953

DUKE UNIVERSITY, et al.,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO REPLY TO
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE
ORDER ON CONFIDENTIALITY AND
PROSPECTIVE SEALING ORDER BY
DUKE UNIVERSITY
Now comes Plaintiffs, through counsel, and pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and Local Rules 6.1 and 7.3, hereby respectfully move for an extension of time from
April 19, 2012 to April 26, 2012, in which to respond to Defendants’ Motion for Entry of Protective
Order on Confidentiality and Prospective Sealing Order.
In support of this Motion, Plaintiffs show the following:
1.

Defendants’ Motion for Entry of Protective Order on Confidentiality and
Prospective Sealing Order (Docket Entry 271) was filed on March 26, 2012.

2.

Pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 6.1,
the time within which Plaintiffs may file his Response to Defendants’ Motion for
Entry of Protective Order on Confidentiality and Prospective Sealing Order has not
yet expired.

3.

Counsel for Plaintiffs requires a short extension of time to develop and prepare
Plaintiffs’ Response.

4.

Counsel has been unexpectedly tied up for much longer than anticipated in a hearing
in Durham County Superior Court and another matter today. Counsel believed that
he would not be tied up for the majority of the day for the hearing. The other
counsel noticed in this action is in a deposition all day with one of the Plaintiffs in
this case. Both counsel are traveling this evening to attend a deposition scheduled
out of state tomorrow.

5.

Counsel for Plaintiffs consulted with opposing counsel and opposing counsel has
consented to this extension.

6.

Counsel for Plaintiffs respectfully requests a 7 day extension and submits that this
Motion is made in good faith and not for the purposes of delay or otherwise unduly
disrupting the schedule of this briefing or case.

6.

A proposed order is attached.
CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant Plaintiffs’
Motion for an order extending the time within which Plaintiff may file their Response up to and
including April 26, 2012.

Dated: April 19, 2012

Respectfully submitted by:
EKSTRAND & EKSTRAND LLP
/s/ Robert C. Ekstrand
Robert C. Ekstrand (NC Bar No. 26673)
811 Ninth Street
Durham, North Carolina 27705
E-mail: [e-mail]
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Counsel for Plaintiffs

2

Respectfully submitted by:
EKSTRAND & EKSTRAND LLP
/s/ Stefanie A. Smith
Stefanie A. Smith (NC Bar No. 42345)
811 Ninth Street
Durham, North Carolina 27705
E-mail: [e-mail]
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Counsel for Plaintiffs

3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

RYAN MCFADYEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

1:07-CV-953

DUKE UNIVERSITY, et al.,
Defendants.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on Thursday, April 19, 2012, pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules 5.3 and 5.4, I electronically filed the foregoing
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF
system, which will automatically generate and send notification of such filing to counsel of
record. The Court’s electronic records show that each party to this action is represented by
at least one registered user of record (or that the party is a registered user of record), to each
of whom the Notice of Electronic Filing will be sent.

Dated: April 19, 2012

Respectfully submitted by:
EKSTRAND & EKSTRAND LLP
/s/ Stefanie A. Smith
Stefanie A. Smith (NC Bar No. 42345)

4