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)

Download PDF
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?