MCFADYEN et al v. DUKE UNIVERSITY et al

Filing 319

RESPONSE in Opposition re #310 MOTION to Strike #309 Reply to Response to Motion, and to Declare Briefing Closed on Motion for Protective Order for the Deposition of Plaintiffs' Litigation Counsel [DE 294] filed by BRECK ARCHER, RYAN MCFADYEN, MATTHEW WILSON. Replies due by 12/3/2012. (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’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DUKE’S
PURPORTED “MOTION TO STRIKE” PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY
The Duke Defendants have moved improperly “to strike” Plaintiffs’
Reply [ECF # 309] in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for an extension of
time [ECF # 305]. Duke’s Motion to Strike [ECF # 310] has no merit for
the obvious reason that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not
authorize a motion “to strike”; motions to strike are appropriately
directed only to pleadings.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). 1

As this Court

previously explained in this case:
Motions to Strike are appropriately addressed to pleadings,
not to other motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Therefore, the
issues raised in the Motion to Strike … are not properly the
basis for a separate motion.
Order granting Pls’ Mot. for Leave to Amend [ECF #135], Feb. 16, 2010.

1 As part of this Response, Plaintiffs incorporate ECF filings #294, 305, 309, and 312 
(including exhibits) to address the Duke Defendants’ factual inaccuracies in their 
Motion to Strike.   

CONCLUSION
Duke’s motion is meritless, unauthorized, and must be denied.
November 16, 2012

Respectfully submitted,
EKSTRAND & EKSTRAND LLP
Counsel for Plaintiffs, Ryan McFadyen,
Matthew Wilson, and Breck Archer
By:

/s/ Robert C. Ekstrand
Robert C. Ekstrand, NC Bar #26673
811 Ninth Street, Second Floor
Durham, North Carolina 27705
[e-mail]
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
/s/ Stefanie A. Smith
Stefanie A. Smith, NC Bar #42345
811 Ninth Street, Second Floor
Durham, North Carolina 27705
[e-mail]
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]

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, Plaintiffs’ Response in
Opposition to Duke’s Purported “Motion to Strike” Plaintiffs’ Reply 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, and to Defendant Linwood Wilson, who appears pro se in this
action and is registered with the Court’s CM/ECF System for purposes of
this action.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Robert C. Ekstrand
Robert C. Ekstrand