MCFADYEN et al v. DUKE UNIVERSITY et al

Filing 387

REPLY, filed by Plaintiffs BRECK ARCHER, RYAN MCFADYEN, MATTHEW WILSON, to Response to #383 Emergency MOTION to Strike #382 Response in Opposition to Motion, #367 Defendant Wilson's Motion to Show Cause, #380 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #367 MOTION for Order to Show Cause why Plaintiffs, their Attorneys and lawfirms should not be held for violation of Rule 11: Sanctions filed by BRECK ARCHER, RYAN MCFADYEN, MATTHEW WILSON. (SPARKS, STEFANIE)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
RYAN MCFADYEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

1:07-CV-953

DUKE UNIVERSITY, et al.,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO LINWOOD WILSON’S RESPONSE IN
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
AND PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO LINWOOD WILSON’S MOTION TO
STRIKE
Plaintiffs Ryan McFadyen, Matthew Wilson, and Breck Archer, through
undersigned counsel, hereby respond to Defendant Linwood Wilson’s outrageous
accusations in his Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a 3-day
Extension of Time [DE 382] and Defendant Wilson’s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’
Response [DE 383]. Plaintiffs stated the following to the Court in their Motion for
Extension of Time [DE 380]: “[c]ounsel for Plaintiffs submit that this Motion is
made in good faith and not for the purposes or delay or otherwise unduly
disrupting the schedule of this case.” [DE 380 at 1]. Plaintiffs’ counsel believed
that this statement was sufficient and that further details were unnecessary.
However, in light of Defendant Wilson’s allegations that Plaintiffs’ counsel are
filing “everything but the kitchen sink” and are “abus[ing] the judicial system”
[DE 381 at 1], Plaintiffs provide the following details to the Court:

1.

Defendant Linwood Wilson filed an untimely Answer [DE 377] on

April 20, 2014 at 8:31pm.
2.

Upon review of Defendant Wilson’s Answer, Plaintiffs’ counsel

noted that it contained important substantive material that supported
Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant Wilson’s Motion for Order to Show
Cause.
3.

On Monday, April 21, 2014 Plaintiffs’ counsel was in Boston

supporting an NC State Trooper and close friend’s marathon run for kids
fighting cancer and their sister and wife’s marathon run for a charity that
honors their little cousin who was tragically killed at a young age when hit
by car while riding his bike.
4.

Because of travel delays and flight times, Plaintiffs’ counsel was

unable to touch base and finalize the incorporation of the substantive
materials from Defendant’s Wilson’s Answer that he had filed on April 21,
2014 at 8:31pm.
5.

Counsel for Plaintiffs requested a brief extension of time to finish

preparing Plaintiffs’ Response. Specifically, Plaintiffs respectfully
requested a short extension of 3 days to file their Response up to and
including April 24, 2014.

6.

But for the recent information filed in Defendant Wilson’s Answer

and the travel delays and flight times, Plaintiffs would have filed their
Response on April 21, 2014.
7.

Plaintiffs’ counsel informed Defendant Wilson this morning that

they planned to file their Response today, April 22, 2014, as to not delay
the Court’s review of the pending motion.
8.

Plaintiffs filed their Response [DE 382] today, April 22, 2014 at

10:51 AM.
9.

Plaintiffs’ request for a short extension of time was for good cause.

Plaintiffs do not want to cause any additional delays in this case, especially
with the upcoming status conferences set in May.
10.

Plaintiffs are not the parties abusing the justice system or filing

everything but the kitchen sink.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court
grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time and deny Defendant Wilson’s
Motion to Strike.

April 22, 2014

Respectfully submitted by:

EKSTRAND & EKSTRAND LLP
Counsel for Plaintiffs

/s/ Robert C. Ekstrand
Robert C. Ekstrand
N.C. Bar No. 26673
110 Swift Avenue, Second Floor
Durham, North Carolina 27705
[e-mail]
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]
/s/ Stefanie Sparks Smith
Stefanie Sparks Smith
N.C. Bar No. 42345
110 Swift Avenue, 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.

1:07-CV-953

DUKE UNIVERSITY, et al.,
Defendants.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 22, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing
with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF System, which will send notice of the
filing to counsel of record for Defendants and Defendant Linwood Wilson, all of
who are registered CM/ECF users.

Dated: April 22, 2014

EKSTRAND & EKSTRAND LLP
Counsel for Plaintiffs

/s/ Stefanie Sparks Smith
Stefanie Sparks Smith
N.C. Bar No. 42345
110 Swift Avenue, Second Floor
Durham, North Carolina 27705
[e-mail]
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]