MCFADYEN et al v. DUKE UNIVERSITY et al

Filing 285

NOTICE by DUKE UNIVERSITY re #283 Order on Motion for Protective Order, (WELLS, DIXIE)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
RYAN McFADYEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DUKE UNIVERSITY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:07–CV–00953

NOTICE
1.

On March 26, 2012, Duke University filed a motion (DE 271) seeking entry

of a blanket protective order to protect the confidentiality of various documents produced
during discovery. Attached to the brief in support of that motion was a proposed order
(DE 272, Ex. A). That proposed order contained language indicating incorrectly that the
parties were consenting to the entry of the proposed order. By way of explanation but not
excuse, that language remained from drafts exchanged between the parties at a time when
the parties were hoping to reach an agreement on a proposed order, but it should not have
been included in the form of order submitted to the Court. The brief (DE 272) in support
of the motion submitted by Duke University made clear that the Plaintiffs did not consent
to the entry of the order proposed by Duke University.
2.

On April 27, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a response brief (DE 278) in

opposition to that motion, further indicating that they opposed entry of the order.
3.

On May 14, 2012, Duke University filed a reply brief (DE 279) in support

of its motion, still further indicating that the Plaintiffs opposed entry of the order.

4.

On May 16, 2012, the Plaintiffs submitted in an electronic format

Plaintiffs’ proposed order that was referenced in Plaintiffs’ response brief (DE 278).
Plaintiffs’ proposed order, like Duke University’s proposed order, was generated in
connection with the parties’ unsuccessful attempts to reach agreement prior to the filing
of the motion. It also contained language indicating incorrectly that the parties were
consenting to the entry of the order proposed by the Plaintiffs.
5.

On July 24, 2012, Duke University responded to a request by the Clerk’s

office and submitted in an electronic format the proposed order that was the subject of its
motion and identical in form to Exhibit A to Docket Entry 272.
6.

On July 24, 2012, the Court entered an Order (DE 283), in which the Court

reasonably – in light of the proposed order that Duke University submitted to the Court –
stated, “Although Plaintiffs initially disagreed as to the contents of the order, the parties
have now submitted a Stipulated Protective Order for consideration.”
7.

Duke University hereby notifies the Court that, to its knowledge, the

Plaintiffs have not consented to the language that was contained in the proposed order
that accompanied the motion filed by Duke University seeking entry of a blanket
protective order.
8.

The undersigned counsel regrets the erroneous language in the proposed

Order and stands ready to provide the Court with any additional information that would
be helpful.

2

This the 25th day of July, 2012.

/s/ Dixie T. Wells
Dixie T. Wells
N.C. State Bar No. 26816
Email: [e-mail]
Ellis & Winters LLP
333 N. Greene St., Suite 200
Greensboro, NC 27401
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Paul K Sun, Jr.
N.C. State Bar No. 16847
Email: [e-mail]
Thomas H. Segars
N.C. State Bar No. 29433
Email: [e-mail]
Jeremy M. Falcone
N.C. State Bar No. 36182
Email: [e-mail]
Ellis & Winters LLP
1100 Crescent Green, Suite 200
Cary, North Carolina 27518
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Counsel for Duke University

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
It is hereby certified that on July 25, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing
NOTICE with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send
notification of such filing to all counsel of record and to Mr. Linwood Wilson, who is
also registered to use the CM/ECF system.
This the 25th day of July, 2012.

/s/ Dixie T. Wells