MCFADYEN et al v. DUKE UNIVERSITY et al

Filing 295

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to serve responses to Defendants' requests for admissions by BRECK ARCHER, RYAN MCFADYEN, MATTHEW WILSON. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(EKSTRAND, ROBERT)

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

RYAN McFADYEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DUKE UNIVERSITY, et al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:07-cv-953-JAB-JEP

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO
DEFENDANTS’ REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Plaintiffs Ryan McFadyen, Matthew Wilson, and Breck Archer,
respectfully move for an order, pursuant to Rule 36(a)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, enlarging the time for Plaintiffs to respond to
Defendants’ Requests for Admissions by six days. Plaintiffs’ responses
and objections are currently due on Wednesday, September 19, 2012. This
motion is unopposed.
On August 17, 2012, Defendants served by e-mail Requests
for Admissions on each of the three Plaintiffs in this case.

Thus,

Plaintiffs’ counsel must prepare each Plaintiff’s responses and objections
individually in consultation with that Plaintiff, one of whom is abroad in

Japan in connection with his employment by the United States.
The six-day extension Plaintiffs request is justified by the
importance of the task, the logistical challenges of communicating
overseas, and the involvement of Plaintiffs’ counsel in oral arguments
before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in this case, and numerous
depositions in this case throughout the period for responding to the
Requests for Admission, restricting the time available to confer with
Plaintiffs to formulate responses and objections. The extension will
allow Plaintiffs’ counsel devote appropriate attention to conferring with
Plaintiffs and preparing their responses to Defendants’ Requests for
Admissions.
Because the discovery period closes on Friday, September 21, 2012,
under the Court’s Initial Scheduling Order, ECF 244, Plaintiffs’ requested
six-day extension of Rule 36’s 30-day period for responding would
extend beyond the close of the discovery. Therefore, although Plaintiffs’
requested extension is not opposed, it may be granted only by order of
this Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 29(b).

For these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court
enter an order enlarging the time for Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants’
Requests for Admissions by six days, up to and including September 25,
2012. Plaintiffs’ proposed order is annexed hereto as Attachment No. 1.
September 18, 2011
Respectfully submitted by:
/s/ Robert C. Ekstrand
Robert C. Ekstrand, N.C. Bar No. 26673
Ekstrand & Ekstrand LLP
811 Ninth Street, Second Floor
Durham, North Carolina 27705
[e-mail]
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]

/s/ Stefanie A. Smith
Stefanie A. Smith, N.C. Bar No. 42345
Ekstrand & Ekstrand LLP
811 Ninth Street, Second Floor
Durham, North Carolina 27705
[e-mail]
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
Counsel for Plaintiffs, Ryan McFadyen, Matthew
Wilson, and Breck Archer

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

RYAN McFADYEN, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
DUKE UNIVERSITY, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:07-cv-953-JAB-JEP

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On the date electronically stamped below, the foregoing motion and
text of Plaintiffs’ proposed order granting the motion was filed with the
Court’s CM/ECF System, which will send a Notice of Electronic Filing
containing a link to download the filing to Defendants’ counsel of record,
all of whom are registered with the Court’s CM/ECF System.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Robert C. Ekstrand
Robert C. Ekstrand

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

RYAN McFADYEN, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
DUKE UNIVERSITY, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:07-cv-953-JAB-JEP

ORDER
Upon Plaintiffs’ motion, without opposition from Defendants,
and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall
have an additional six days to respond to Defendants’ Requests for
Admissions, up to and including September 25, 2012.
So ORDERED, this ___ day of September, 2012.

____________________________
Hon. Joi Elizabeth Peake
United States Magistrate Judge