MCFADYEN et al v. DUKE UNIVERSITY et al

Filing 305

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #300 Response in Opposition to Motion, #294 MOTION for Protective Order for the Deposition of Plaintiffs' Litigation Counsel by BRECK ARCHER, RYAN MCFADYEN, MATTHEW WILSON. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order) (SPARKS, STEFANIE) Modified on 10/17/2012 to remove extra punctuation. (Sheets, Jamie)

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

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF
RYAN

MCFADYEN,

MATTHEW

WILSON,

and

BRECK

ARCHER (“Plaintiffs”), respectfully request a short extension of 3
days from the Court to file their reply briefs supporting their motion for
a protective order and their counsel’s motion to quash the Duke

Defendants’ subpoenas to take their counsel’s depositions in
McFadyen, et al. v. Duke University, et al. and Carrington, et al. v.
Duke

University,

et

al.,

respectively.

Specifically,

Plaintiffs

respectfully request that the Court set the deadline for both reply
briefs for October 18, 2012.
In support of this Motion, Plaintiffs show the Court the following:

1.

In McFadyen, et al. v. Duke University, et al., Plaintiffs
filed their Motion for a Protective Order (DE 294) relating
to

the

Duke

Defendants’

subpoenas

to

take

the

depositions of their counsel Robert Ekstrand and Stefanie
Smith on September 3, 2012. The Duke Defendants filed
their Response in Opposition to the Motion for a Protective
Order (DE 300) on September 27, 2012.

The current

deadline for the reply brief in McFadyen, et al. v. Duke
University, et al. is October 15, 2012.
2.

In Carrington, et al. v. Duke University, et al., Plaintiffs’

counsel filed a Motion to Quash Duke’s Subpoenas to
Take the Depositions of Litigation Counsel in McFadyen,
et al. v. Duke University, et al. (DE 258) on September 3,
2012.

The Duke Defendants filed their Response in

Opposition to the Motion to Quash (DE 261) on
September 10, 2012. Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a Motion to
Extend Time to File Reply Brief (DE 268) on September
25, 2012. The Duke Defendants filed their Response (DE

269) on September 26, 2012. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s reply to

the Duke Defendants’ Response to Movants’ Motion to
Extend Time to File Reply Brief is currently due on
October 15, 2012.
3.

In Carrington, et al. v. Duke University, et al., Plaintiffs’
counsel filed their Motion for Extension of Time to
Harmonize Deadlines for Reply Briefs in Carrington and
McFadyen (DE 272) on October 4, 2012.

The Duke

Defendants filed their Response (DE 275) on October 12,
2012. In their Response, the Duke Defendants neither
consented nor opposed Plaintiffs’ counsel’s request for an

extension.

Plaintiffs’ counsel’s reply to the Duke

Defendants’ Response is currently due on October 29,
2012.
4.

On October 12, 2012, the Honorable John H. Rich III of
the United States District Court for the District of Maine

entered an order granting in part and denying for the most
part Duke’s motion to compel the deposition and
production of documents of one of the two authors of one
of the books the Duke Defendants refer to in their
response briefs opposing Plaintiffs’ motion for a protective
order and Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to quash the Duke
Defendants’ subpoenas to take Plaintiffs’ counsel’s
depositions. In granting in part Duke’s Motion, the District
Court of Maine is permitting a very limited inquiry.
Plaintiffs’ counsel are evaluating whether the District Court
of Maine’s order has any bearing upon the arguments the
Duke Defendants advance in their responses in opposition
to the motion to quash and motion for protective order
relating to Duke's subpoenas to take the depositions of
Plaintiffs' counsel. Plaintiffs’ counsel does not require
significant time to do so, but may require a modest
amount of time to assess the Order and is thus
respectfully requesting from the Court a short extension of
3 days. Plaintiffs were made aware of the Memorandum

Decision this afternoon in an email from the Duke
Defendants’ counsel, which the Memorandum Decision
was attached to.
5.

The central issues involved with the reply briefs in
Carrington, et al. v. Duke University, et al. and McFadyen,
et al. v. Duke University, et al. are essentially the same.
Plaintiffs believe that the Court is likely to consider the
briefings in Carrington and McFadyen in tandem and
therefore it is appropriate if an extension is being sought in
one case to harmonize the deadlines for both reply briefs.

6.

Plaintiffs’ counsel very recently requested a 3 day
extension of time in Carrington, et al. v. Duke University,
et al. to file their reply brief supporting their motion to
quash (DE 276).

7.

This Motion is made in good faith and not for purposes of
delay.

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs respectfully request
an order extending the time within which they may file a reply brief
supporting their motion for a protective order regarding the Duke

Defendants’ subpoenas to take the depositions of Plaintiffs’ counsel
to October 18, 2012, the date on which an extension of time is also
being sought for the reply brief relating to the Motion to Quash in
Carrington, et al. v. Duke University, et al.

October 15, 2012

Respectfully submitted by:
/s/ Robert C. Ekstrand
Robert C. Ekstrand
N.C. Bar No. 26673
EKSTRAND & EKSTRAND
811 Ninth Street, Second Floor
Durham, North Carolina 27705
[e-mail]
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]

.

Counsel for Movant, Stefanie A. Smith
/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 Movant, 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

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 counsel of record, all of whom are registered with the Court’s
CM/ECF System.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stefanie A. Smith
Stefanie A. Smith
N.C. Bar No. 42345