MCFADYEN et al v. DUKE UNIVERSITY et al
Filing
309
REPLY, filed by Plaintiff BRECK ARCHER, to Response to #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 filed by BRECK ARCHER. (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.
DUKE UNIVERSITY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:07-cv-953-JAB-JEP
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY REGARDING MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF
RYAN
MCFADYEN,
MATTHEW
WILSON,
and
BRECK
ARCHER (“Plaintiffs”), respectfully provide the following brief Reply to
the Court.
1.
On October 16, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Plaintiffs filed a
Motion (ECF No. 305) requesting an extension of time to file
their Reply Brief supporting their motion for a protective order to
take
their
counsel’s
depositions.
Specifically,
Plaintiffs
requested that the Court set the deadline for the reply brief for
October 18, 2012.
2.
One of reasons for Plaintiffs’ request was so that
Plaintiffs’ counsel could assess any impact of the recent
Memorandum Decision of the Honorable John H. Rich III of the
United States District Court for the District of Maine had issued.
Plaintiffs’
counsel
had
become
aware
of
the
recent
Memorandum Decision during the afternoon of October 15,
2012.
3.
Because of the timing of when Plaintiffs filed their
Motion, Plaintiffs’ counsel did not request the Duke Defendants’
position before filing the Motion. However, in an effort to be
able to report the Duke Defendants’ position to the Court,
Plaintiffs’ counsel contacted Mr. Sun and Ms. Wells, counsel for
the Duke Defendants, on October 16, 2012. Plaintiffs’ counsel
received no response from the Duke Defendants’ counsel.
4.
The Duke Defendants filed their Response (ECF
No. 308) to Plaintiffs’ Motion requesting an extension of time on
October 18, 2012.
In their Response, the Duke Defendants
stated that they neither consented to nor opposed Plaintiffs’
Motion.
5.
Since the briefing of Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 305)
regarding an extension of time had not been completed until
after the date of the proposed extension, October 18, 2012,
Plaintiffs have attached a revised proposed order for the Court’s
consideration.
6.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for an extension of time was 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 the date on which an order by the Court granting Plaintiffs’ Motion
is entered.
October 19, 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
RCE@ninthstreetlaw.com
Tel. (919) 416-4590
Fax (919) 416-4591
.
Counsel for Plaintiffs
/s/ Stefanie A. Smith
Stefanie A. Smith
N.C. Bar No. 42345
Ekstrand & Ekstrand LLP
811 Ninth Street, Second Floor
Durham, North Carolina 27705
SAS@ninthstreetlaw.com
Tel. (919) 416-4590
Fax (919) 416-4591
Counsel for Plaintiffs
.
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
Reply and text of Plaintiffs’ revised 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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?