MCFADYEN et al v. DUKE UNIVERSITY et al

Filing 300

RESPONSE in Opposition re #294 MOTION for Protective Order for the Deposition of Plaintiffs' Litigation Counsel filed by ROBERT DEAN, MATTHEW DRUMMOND, DUKE UNIVERSITY, AARON GRAVES, GARY N. SMITH. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 - Flannery Deposition Excerpt, #2 Exhibit 2 - 2007-01-31 Emails between Hendricks & Ekstrand, #3 Exhibit 3 - Tkac Deposition Excerpt, #4 Exhibit 4 - McDevitt Deposition Excerpt, #5 Exhibit 5 - 2012-02-14 Document Subpoena to Bob Ekstrand, #6 Exhibit 6 - 2012-02-14 Document Subpoena to Ekstrand & Ekstrand, #7 Exhibit 7 - 2012-02-14 Testimony Subpoena to Robert Ekstrand, #8 Exhibit 8 - 2012-03-14 Objections to Subpoenas, #9 Exhibit 9 - 2012-03-31 Email from Stefanie Sparks, #10 Exhibit 10 - 2012-08-14 Carrington Plaintiffs' Supplemental Initial Disclosures, #11 Exhibit 11 - 2012-08-17 Testimony Subpoena to Stefanie Sparks Smith, #12 Exhibit 12 - 2012-08-31 Objection to Subpoena, #13 Exhibit 13 - 2011-10-03 Duke's Defendants' Initial Disclosures in Carrington, #14 Exhibit 14 - Dowd Deposition Excerpt, #15 Exhibit 15 - Schoeffel Deposition Excerpt, #16 Exhibit 16 - Koesterer Deposition Excerpt, #17 Exhibit 17 - 2007-02-15 Letter from Cheshire to Coman, #18 Exhibit 18 - Catalino Deposition Excerpt, #19 Exhibit 19 - Clute Deposition Excerpt, #20 Exhibit 20 - Jennison Deposition Excerpt, #21 Exhibit 21 - Archer Deposition Excerpt, #22 Exhibit 22 - Oppedisano Deposition Excerpt, #23 Exhibit 23 - Sherwood Deposition Excerpt, #24 Exhibit 24 - Common Representation Agreement, #25 Exhibit 25 - McFadyen Deposition Excerpt)(FALCONE, JEREMY)

EXHIBIT 10

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

EDWARD CARRINGTON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DUKE UNIVERSITY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:08–CV–00119

SUPPLEMENT TO PLAINTIFFS’ INITIAL DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO
RULE 26(a)(1)
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1) and the Court’s Initial Pretrial Order, Edward
Carrington, Casey J. Carroll, Michael P. Catalino, Thomas Clute, Kevin Coleman, Joshua
R. Covaleski, Edward J. Crotty, Edward S. Douglas, Kyle Dowd, Daniel Flannery,
Richard Gibbs Fogarty, Zachary Greer, Erik S. Henkelman, John E. Jennison, Ben
Koesterer, Fred Krom, Peter J. Lamade, Adam Langley, Christopher Loftus, Daniel
Loftus, Anthony McDevitt, Glenn Nick, Nicholas O’Hara, Daniel Oppedisano, Sam
Payton, John Bradley Ross, Kenneth J. Sauer, III, Steve Schoeffel, Robert Schroeder,
Devon Sherwood, Daniel Theodoridis, Brett Thompson, Christopher Tkac, John Walsh,
Jr., Michael Ward, Robert Wellington, William Wolcott, and Michael Young
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) make the following supplement to their initial disclosures with
respect to Counts 8, 11, and 19 of their First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”). Counts
8, 11, and 19 consist of claims brought against Duke University, Richard Brodhead,
1

Robert Dean, Matthew Drummond, Aaron Graves, Kate Hendricks, Tallman Trask, and
Suzanne Wasiolek (collectively, the “Duke Defendants”) for their role in Duke
University’s response to false allegations of rape made against members of the 2005-06
Duke University Men’s Lacrosse Team. These supplemental initial disclosures are based
on the information reasonably available to Plaintiffs at this time, and Plaintiffs reserve the
right, pursuant to Rule 26(e)(1), to further supplement these disclosures to the extent
required under that rule or other applicable law.
I.

Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i)
The following individuals are likely to have discoverable information that

Plaintiffs may use to support their claims:
1. The Plaintiffs have information related to the factual allegations in the Complaint,
the actions taken by the Duke Defendants in connection with the rape allegations,
and the damages they have suffered as a result of those actions. The Plaintiffs’
addresses and telephone numbers are listed below.
NAME

ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE
NUMBER
1768 Catlin Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22901
[phone]
6500 Whittlesey Blvd. Apt. 104
Columbus, GA 31909
[phone]
1644 33rd St. NW Apt. B
Washington, DC 20007
[phone]

Edward Carrington

Casey J. Carroll

Michael P. Catalino

2

Thomas Clute

2555 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Apt. 918
Washington, DC 20037
[phone]
343 E 74th St. Apt. PH2A
New York, NY 10021
[phone]
1 Waterwheel Circle
Dover, DE 19901
[phone]
135 West 10th St. Apt. 1
New York, NY 11014
[phone]
1530 Jones St. Apt. 3
San Francisco, CA 94109
[phone]
127 Emerald Hill Road
Singapore, Singapore 229410
Phone: [phone]
85 East End Ave. Apt. 12-D
New York, NY 10028
[phone]
4741 Reservoir Rd. NW
Washington, DC 20007
[phone]
23 Autumn Pl.
St. Catharines On. L2P3W3
[phone]
515 S. 10th St. Unit G
Philadelphia, PA 19147
[phone]
2710 Pine St.
San Francisco, CA 94115
[phone]
3963 Keeshen Drive
Mar Vista, CA 90066
[phone]
48 MacDougal Street, Apt. 2
New York, NY 10012
[phone]

Kevin Coleman

Joshua R. Coveleski

Edward J. Crotty

Edward S. Douglas

Kyle Dowd

Daniel Flannery

Richard Gibbs Fogarty

Zachary Greer

Erik S. Henkelman

John E. Jennison

Ben Koesterer

Fred Krom

3

Peter J. Lamade

8328 Georgetown Pike
McLean, VA 22102
[phone]
1755 Kilbourne Place NW Apt. 3
Washington, DC 20010
[phone]
189 Miller Place
Syosset, NY 11791
[phone]
356 West Thatch Palm Circle #106
Jupiter, FL 33458
[phone]
118 East 11th St. Apt. A
New York, NY 10003
[phone]
2-17 51st Ave. Apt. 310
Long Island City, NY 11101
[phone]
115 Pond Apple Ln. Unit 103
Jupiter, FL 33458
[phone]
2020 Walnut St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
[phone]
301 W 53rd St. Apt. 23K
New York, NY 10019
[phone]
189 Dartmouth Pl. Unit 4
Pawtucket, RI 02860
[phone]
127 Emerald Hill Rd.
Singapore, Singapore 229410
[phone]
4545 S. Monaco Street #139
Denver, CO 80237
[phone]
24 Warwick Road
Summit, NJ 07901
[phone]

Adam Langley

Christopher Loftus

Daniel Loftus

Anthony McDevitt

Glenn Nick

Nicholas O’Hara

Daniel Oppedisano

Sam Payton

John Bradley Ross

Kenneth J. Sauer, III

Steve Schoeffel

Robert Schroeder

4

Devon Sherwood

110 Michigan Ave. NE, Apt. 43F
Washington, D.C. 20017
[phone]
6 Christopher Ln.
Norwalk, CT 06851
[phone]
4629 1/2B MacArthur Blvd. NW
Washington, DC 20007
[phone]
777 6th Ave. Apt. 29J
New York, NY 10001
[phone]
300 East 40th St. Apt. 26W
New York, NY 11016
[phone]
28 Sherry Dr.
Setauket, NY 11733
[phone]
1919 Colquitt Street, Unit C
Houston, TX 77098
[phone]
27 Barker Ave. Apt. 1002
White Plains, NY 10601
[phone]
85 E 38th St. Apt. 2e
New York, NY 10016
[phone]

Daniel Theodoridis

Bret Thompson

Christopher Tkac

John Walsh, Jr.

Michael Ward

Robert Wellington

William Wolcott

Michael Young

2. The following parents of Plaintiffs are likely to have information related to the
factual allegations in the complaint, the Duke Defendants’ actions in connection
with the rape allegations, and/or the damages suffered by Plaintiffs that Plaintiffs
may use to support their claims:
a. Gerald Crotty
2 Miller Road

5

New Vernon, NJ 07976
[phone]
b. Tricia Dowd
17 Gunther Drive
East Northport, NY 11731
[phone]
c. Everett Flannery
109 Kildare Rd.
Garden City, NY 11530
[phone]
d. Sally Fogarty
3804 Bradley Lane
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
[phone]
e. Frederick Krom
185 Summit Avenue
Summit, NJ 07901
[phone]
f. Lawrence Lamade
6712 Connecticut Avenue
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
[phone]
g. Bruce Thompson
8309 Kerry Road
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
[phone]
h. Kathleen Thompson
8309 Kerry Road
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
[phone]

6

3. The Duke Defendants are likely to have information related to the University’s
response to the false rape allegations, including its interactions with public
authorities investigating the allegations; the actions each of the Duke Defendants
took in connection with that response; and the resulting damages suffered by the
Plaintiffs. The particular information each Duke Defendant is likely to have
includes the following:
a. Richard Brodhead – President Brodhead is likely to have information about
the interactions he and other Duke University officials had with the
Plaintiffs, the media, City of Durham officials, and others with respect to
the rape allegations; the actions he and other Duke University officials took
in connection with supervising and directing the University’s response to
the rape allegations; and the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a result
of his and the other Duke Defendants’ actions.
b. Robert Dean – Director and Chief of the Duke Police Department Dean is
likely to have information about the provision of the Plaintiffs’ DukeCard
information to the City of Durham and the University’s actions related to
the later subpoena for that information; the interactions he and other Duke
University officials had with the Plaintiffs, the media, City of Durham
officials, and others with respect to the rape allegations; the actions he and
other Duke University officials took in connection with supervising and

7

directing the University’s response to the rape allegations; and the damages
suffered by the Plaintiffs as a result of his and the other Duke Defendants’
actions.
c. Matthew Drummond – Director Drummond is likely to have information
related to the provision of the Plaintiffs’ DukeCard information to the City
of Durham and the University’s actions related to the later subpoena for
that information.
d. Aaron Graves – Vice President for Campus Security Graves is likely to
have information about the interactions he and other Duke University
officials had with the Plaintiffs, the media, City of Durham officials, and
others with respect to the rape allegations; the actions he and other Duke
University officials took in connection with supervising and directing the
University’s response to the rape allegations; and the damages suffered by
the Plaintiffs as a result of his and the other Duke Defendants’ actions.
e. Kate Hendricks – Deputy General Counsel Hendricks is likely to have
information about the provision of the Plaintiffs’ DukeCard information to
the City of Durham and the University’s actions related to the later
subpoena for that information; the interactions she and other Duke
University officials had with the Plaintiffs, the media, City of Durham
officials, and others with respect to the rape allegations; the actions she and

8

other Duke University officials took in connection with supervising and
directing the University’s response to the rape allegations; and the damages
suffered by the Plaintiffs as a result of her and the other Duke Defendants’
actions.
f. Tallman Trask – Executive Vice President Trask is likely to have
information about the interactions he and other Duke University officials
had with the Plaintiffs, the media, City of Durham officials, and others with
respect to the rape allegations; the actions he and other Duke University
officials took in connection with supervising and directing the University’s
response to the rape allegations; and the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs
as a result of his and the other Duke Defendants’ actions.
g. Suzanne Wasiolek – Dean Wasiolek is likely to have information about the
interactions she and other Duke University officials had with the Plaintiffs,
the media, City of Durham officials, and others with respect to the rape
allegations; the actions she and other Duke University officials took in
connection with supervising and directing the University’s response to the
rape allegations; and the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a result of
her and the other Duke Defendants’ actions.
4. The following individuals who were officers, employees, and/or agents of Duke
University at the time of the rape allegations and the ensuing response are likely to

9

have information related to the actions taken by Duke University and its officers,
employees, and agents in connection with the rape allegations and/or the resulting
damages suffered by the Plaintiffs:
a. David Adcock
b. Joe Alleva
c. Houston Baker
d. Lee Baker
e. Steve Baldwin
f. Mary Boatwright
g. Roy Bostock
h. Stephen Bryan
i. John Burness
j. Kevin Cassese
k. William Chafe
l. James E. Coleman, Jr.
m. Thomas Crowley
n. Kim Curtis
o. John Danowski
p. Kemel Dawkins
q. Christopher Day

10

r. Sally Deutsch
s. Anthony Drexel Duke1
t. Grant Farred
u. Joe Ferraro
v. C. Faulkner Fox
w. David Gergen
x. Roland Gettliffe
y. George Grody
z. Paul Haagen
aa. Allison Haltom
bb. Karla Holloway
cc. Sam Hummel
dd. Reeve Huston
ee. Lisa Jordan
ff. Prasad Kasibhatia
gg. Chris Kennedy
hh. Kerstin Kimel
ii. Mike Krzyzewski
jj. Peter Lange
1

It is our understanding that Mr. Duke was an emeritus member of Duke University’s
Board of Trustees when the events that gave rise to this litigation occurred.
11

kk. Wahneema Lubiano
ll. John Mack
mm.

George McLendon

nn. Sarah Minnis
oo. Larry Moneta
pp. Mark Anthony Neal
qq. Mike Pressler
rr. Sara Jane Raines
ss. Richard Riddell
tt. Thomas Robisheaux
uu. Gary Smith
vv. Kathleen Smith
ww.

Robert Steel

xx. Greg Stotsenberg
yy. Robert Thompson
zz. Susan Thorne
aaa.

Tim Tyson

bbb.

Father Joe Vetter

ccc.

G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.

ddd.

Reverend Sam Wells

12

eee.

Peter Wood

5. Members of the Board of Directors of Duke University who approved of President
Brodhead’s actions taken in connection with the rape allegations.
6. Joe Alberici is likely to have information related to the damages suffered by
Plaintiffs.
Joe Alberici
Head Lacrosse Coach
United States Military Academy
ODIA
6319 Howard Road
West Point, NY 10996
[phone]
7. Robert Ekstrand and/or Stefanie Sparks are likely to have information related to
the facts underlying Counts 8, 11, and 19 and the resulting damages suffered by
Plaintiffs.
Robert Ekstrand
Stefanie Sparks
Ekstrand & Ekstrand LLP
811 Ninth Street
Suite 260
Durham, NC 27705
[phone]
8. David Evans, Sr. and David Evans, Jr. are likely to have information related to the
facts underlying Counts 8, 11, and 19 and the resulting damages suffered by
Plaintiffs.
David Evans, Sr.
600 Maid Marion Road
Annapolis, MD 21405
[phone]
13

David Evans, Jr.
2300 Walnut Street, Apt. 627
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Counsel:
Brendan V. Sullivan
Christopher Manning
Williams & Connolly
725 12th Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20005
[phone]
9. Mark Gottlieb is likely to have information regarding efforts to obtain Plaintiffs’
DukeCard information from Duke University and the University’s provision of
information to the City of Durham Police Department.
Mark Gottlieb
c/o David W. Long
Poyner Spruill LLP
P.O. Box 1801
Raleigh, NC 27602
[phone]
10. Benjamin Himan is likely to have information regarding efforts to obtain
Plaintiffs’ DukeCard information from Duke University and the University’s
provision of information to the City of Durham Police Department.
Benjamin Himan
c/o Joel M. Craig
Kennon, Craver, Belo, Craig & McKee, PLLC
P.O. Box 51579
Durham, North Carolina 27717
[phone]
11. Rick Leahman is likely to have information related to the

14

deferral of Plaintiff Daniel Flannery’s employment at UBS.
Rick Leahman
Moelis & Company
399 Park Avenue, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10022
[phone]
12. Crystal Mangum is likely to have information related to the rape allegations and
subsequent investigation.
13. Michael Nifong is likely to have information regarding efforts to obtain Plaintiffs’
DukeCard information from Duke University and the University’s provision of
information to the City of Durham Police Department.
Michael Nifong
c/o James B. Craven, III
349 West Main Street, P.O. Box 1366
Durham, North Carolina 27701
[phone]
14. Kim Roberts, a.k.a. Pittman, is likely to have information related to the rape
allegations and subsequent investigation.
15. Jason Trumpbour is likely to have information regarding Duke University’s
response to the rape allegations and to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs.
Jason Trumpbour
106 Kirsten Court
Parkton, MD 21120
[phone]
16. Daniel Waters is likely to have information regarding Duke University’s response
to the rape allegations.
15

Daniel Waters
FrontPoint Partners LLC
Two Greenwich Plaza
4th Floor
Greenwich, CT 06830
[phone]
17. Any other person or entity deposed or subpoenaed by any party to this litigation,
and any other person or entity disclosed by the Duke Defendants as likely to have
discoverable information.
II.

Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii)
Plaintiffs have in their possession, custody, or control the following categories of

documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that they may use to
support their claims:
 Materials related to the response of Duke University and its officers, employees,
and agents to the rape allegations.
 Materials related to Plaintiffs’ individual factual allegations.
 Materials related to Plaintiffs’ interactions with Duke University officers,
employees, and agents, including the individual Duke Defendants, related to the
rape allegations.
 Correspondence from Duke University officials related to the subpoena for
Plaintiffs’ DukeCard information.

16

 Materials related to Plaintiffs’ response to the subpoena for their DukeCard
information.
 Materials related to the damages Plaintiffs have suffered as a result of the Duke
Defendants’ actions.
These materials are located with Plaintiffs or with their counsel in this litigation.2
III.

Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii)
Plaintiffs claim several categories of damages flowing from their claims against

the Duke Defendants3:
1. Compensatory damages:
a. Reputational injury.
b. Emotional suffering.

2

The Duke Defendants and subpoenaed third parties have produced materials that may fit
into these categories. Plaintiffs are continuing to review and analyze these materials.
3
Plaintiffs have conducted an initial computation of damages for their legal and other
out-of-pocket expenses and for economic costs related to the cancellation of the 2006
lacrosse season. The remaining categories of compensatory damages are not amenable
to such a computation at this time, and to the extent that Plaintiffs intend to put a specific
dollar amount on those remaining categories of damages they will do so on the basis of
expert testimony that will be disclosed to the Duke Defendants at the appropriate time
(expert discovery is, of course, currently stayed). A computation of punitive damages is
likewise not feasible at this time.
Nevertheless, in addition to making available for inspection and copying
evidentiary material on which the computations they have disclosed are based, Plaintiffs
will also make available for inspection and copying evidentiary material that bears on the
nature and extent of the full range of their damages, with the exception of material (such
as their Duke University transcripts) that is already in the Duke Defendants’ possession,
custody, or control.

17

c. Invasion of privacy.
d. Loss of educational and athletic opportunities.
e. Loss of future career prospects.4
f. Economic costs of cancellation of 2006 season.5

Name:

Fifth Yr.
Expenses:

Opportunity
Cost:

Catalino, Michael
Clute, Thomas

$7,112.00
$28,368.577

TBD6

$45,000.00

Total:
$7,112.00 +
TBD
$73,368.57

Coveleski, Joshua
Crotty, Ned

None
$23,715.00

TBD8
$40,000.00

TBD
$63,715.00

Douglas, Edward

None

$90,000.00

$90,000.00

Jennison, Jay

$23,715.00

$42,916.00

$66,631.00

Lamade, Peter

$21,309.50

Loftus, Chris

$3,773.20

$35,000.00
$88,000.00 $90,000.00

$56,309.50
$91,773.20 –
93,773.20

Loftus, Daniel

$14,670.00

$40,000.00

$54,670.00

O’Hara, Nicolas

$14,500.00

$40,000.00

$54,500.00

Ross, John Bradley

$8,540.74

$35,000.00

$43,540.74

4

Although this category of damages will be the subject of expert testimony, Plaintiffs
disclose at this time that Daniel Flannery experienced a net loss of $146,200 in
compensation from deferring his employment for one year.
5
All the players listed in this table played a fifth year of NCAA lacrosse.
6
Mr. Catalino is still in medical school; the opportunity cost for his fifth year will be the
income he earns in his first year of practice after completing medical school and
residency.
7
In addition, Mr. Clute’s costs include student-loan interest that continues to accrue.
8
Mr. Coveleski’s opportunity cost will be the income he earns in his first year of work
following completion of his PhD program.
18

Schoeffel, Steve
Schroeder, Rob

$12,292.50
$1,200.00

$40,000.00
$85,000.00

Sherwood, Devon
Theodoridis, Daniel

$9,058.80
$28,384.52

TBD9
$65,000.00

TBD10

$120,000.00
$765,916.00 –
767,916.00,
+ TBD

Ward, Michael

Total:

$196,639.83

$52,292.50
$86,200.00
$9,058.80 +
TBD
$93,384.52
$120,000.00 +
TBD
$962,555.83 –
964,555.83,
+ TBD

g. Legal and other expenses.
Name:
Carrington, Edward
Carroll, Casey
Catalino, Michael
Clute, Thomas
Coleman, Kevin
Coveleski, Joshua
Crotty, Edward
Douglas, Edward
Dowd, Kyle
Flannery, Daniel

Legal Fees:11
$7,691.00
$9,827.00
$14,080.50
$16,250.00
$59,098.00
$13,963.00
$15,419.50
$13,663.00
$19,722.00
$20,000.00

9

Other Expenses:

$1,850.0012

$2,400.0013

Totals:
$7,691.00
$9,827.00
$14,080.50
$16,250.00
$60,948.00
$13,963.00
$15,419.50
$13,663.00
$19,722.00
$22,400.00

Mr. Sherwood is currently in his first year at the job he obtained after completing
graduate school. His salary is $18,000 plus a variable monthly commission. His
opportunity cost will be the income he earns in his first year on the job.
10
Duke is in possession of internal documents establishing the cost of Mr. Ward’s tuition
and fees.
11
At this time, Plaintiffs take no position on the legal validity of an additional $86,849.00
in legal fees they are collectively claimed to owe.
12
Approximately $850 in expenses associated with leaving the hostile Duke
environment, and approximately $1,000 in travel expenses to Raleigh to meet with the
special prosecutor.
13
Expenses associated with leaving the hostile Duke environment.
19

Fogarty, Richard Gibbs
Greer, Zachary
Henkelman, Erik S.
Jennison, John
Koesterer, Ben
Krom, Fred
Lamade, Peter
Langley, Adam
Loftus, Chris
Loftus, Daniel
McDevitt, Anthony
Nick, Glenn
O'Hara, Nicolas
Oppedisano, Daniel
Payton, Sam
Ross, John Bradley
Sauer, Kenneth
Schoeffel, Steve
Schroeder, Robert
Theodoridis, Daniel
Thompson, Bret
Tkac, Christopher
Ward, Michael
Wellington, Robert
Wolcott, William
Young, Michael
Total:

14
15

$13,910.50
$16,878.00
$12,535.50
$5,000.00
$14,288.00
$26,671.00
$49,184.94
$10,500.00
$12,948.00
$12,053.00
$18,043.00
$14,300.50
$16,780.50
$14,758.00
$11,738.00
$12,398.00
$15,445.50
$14,020.50
$6,000.00
$14,889.00
$89,073.56
$14,213.00
$3,074.00
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
$14,180.00
$642,596.50

Id.
Id.
20

$600.0014

$1,500.0015

$6,350.00

$13,910.50
$16,878.00
$12,535.50
$5,000.00
$14,288.00
$27,271.00
$49,184.94
$10,500.00
$12,948.00
$12,053.00
$18,043.00
$15,800.50
$16,780.50
$14,758.00
$11,738.00
$12,398.00
$15,445.50
$14,020.50
$6,000.00
$14,889.00
$89,073.56
$14,213.00
$3,074.00
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
$14,180.00
$648,946.50

2. Punitive damages for fraudulent, willful and wanton, and malicious conduct.
IV.

Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iv)
None.

Dated: August 14, 2012

William J. Thomas, II
N.C. Bar No. 9004
Philip A. Mullins, IV
N.C. Bar. No. 20219
THOMAS, FERGUSON
& MULLINS, L.L.P.
119 East Main St.
Durham, NC 27701
919-682-5648
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

/s/ Charles J. Cooper
Charles J. Cooper
David H. Thompson
Nicole J. Moss
N.C. Bar. No. 31958
Peter A. Patterson
COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
1523 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
202-220-9600
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

Brian S. Koukoutchos
28 Eagle Trace
Mandeville, LA 70471
985-626-5052
Fax : [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

21

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
It is hereby certified that the foregoing has been served this day by electronic
transmission as provided in Rule 5(b)(2)(E) to:
Counsel for Duke University Defendants
Richard W. Ellis
[e-mail]
Dixie Wells
[e-mail]
Jeremy Falcone
[e-mail]

This the 14th day of August, 2012.
s/ Aaron Cummings
Aaron Cummings