MCFADYEN et al v. DUKE UNIVERSITY et al

Filing 419

Transcript of Proceedings held on 05/16/2013, re: Status Conference, before Judge James A. Beaty, Jr., Court Reporter Lori Russell, Telephone number 336-734-2547. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. NOTICE RE: REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have 5 business days to file a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction and 21 calendar days to file a Redaction Request. If no notice is filed, this transcript will be made electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the court reporter before the 90 day deadline. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 7/14/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/24/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/19/2014. Associated Cases: 1:07-cv-00953-JAB-JEP, 1:07-cv-00739-JAB-JEP (Russell, Lori)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
DAVID F. EVANS, et al.,

*
*
Plaintiffs, *
*
vs.
*
*
CITY OF DURHAM, NC, et al., *
*
Defendants. *
____________________________*
*
RYAN MCFADYEN, et al.,
*
*
Plaintiffs, *
*
vs.
*
*
DUKE UNIVERSITY, et al.,
*
*
Defendants. *
*****************************

Case No. 1:07CV739

Winston-Salem, North Carolina
May 16, 2014
10 a.m.

Case No.

1:07CV953

TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE
BEFORE THE HONORABLE JAMES A. BEATY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiffs:
1:07CV739

CHRISTOPHER N. MANNING, ESQUIRE
CHARLES DAVANT, IV, ESQUIRE
Williams & Connolly, LLP
725 12th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
CHRISTOPHER C. FIALKO, ESQUIRE
Rudolf Widenhouse & Fialko
225 East Worthington Avenue
Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28203

1:07CV953

ROBERT C. EKSTRAND, ESQUIRE
Ekstrand & Ekstrand, LLP
811 Ninth Street, Suite 260
Durham, NC 27701

2

1

For the Defendants:

2

1:07CV739 & 1:07CV953

3

REGINALD B. GILLESPIE, JR., ESQUIRE
Wilson & Ratledge, PLLC
4600 Marriott Drive, Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27612

4
LINWOOD E. WILSON, PRO SE
6910 Innesbrook Way
Bahama, NC 27503

5
6
1:07CV953
7
8

PAUL K. SUN, JR., ESQUIRE
Ellis & Winters, LLP
Post Office Box 33550
Raleigh, NC 27636
DIXIE T. WELLS, ESQUIRE
Ellis & Winters, LLP
333 N. Greene Street, Suite 200
Greensboro, NC 27401

9
10
11

DAN J. MCLAMB, ESQUIRE
BARBARA B. WEYHER, ESQUIRE
ALLISON J. BECKER, ESQUIRE
Yates McLamb & Weyher, LLP
Post Office Box 2889
Raleigh, NC 27602

12
13
14
15
16

Court Reporter:

Lori Russell, RMR, CRR
P.O. Box 20593
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27120

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Proceedings recorded by stenotype reporter.
Transcript produced by Computer-Aided Transcription.

5/16/14 - 1:07CV739 and 1:07CV953 - STATUS CONFERENCE
3

P R O C E E D I N G S

1
2

THE COURT:

Counsel, the Court notes for the

3

record this is a follow-up to an earlier hearing, a status

4

conference report, held in this matter earlier in the year.

5

The Court had given the parties additional time to consider

6

this matter and determine whether or not any resolution

7

could be made as between the various parties.

8
9

The Court will note that there are two separate cases
for consideration today, the one being the case in 1:07CV739

10

involving the plaintiffs David Evans, Collin Finnerty, and

11

Reade Seligmann versus the City of Durham and others.

12

second case is that of McFadyen versus Duke in 1:07CV953.

13

The

The Court is aware that certain actions have been taken

14

with respect to some of the Defendants in the Evans matter

15

and I'll address that one first.

16

are with respect to the McFadyen case.

17
18

Then we'll see where we

Mr. Manning, do you wish to be heard in terms of where
we are in the Evans matter?

19

MR. MANNING:

Yes, Your Honor, and good morning.

20

May it please the Court, as we informed the Court

21

yesterday, we reached a resolution with the City of Durham

22

defendants -- those were the two detectives, Detective Himan

23

and Detective Gottlieb -- as well as the City of Durham

24

itself.

25

reached a resolution with Mr. Nifong yesterday and those

Those claims were dismissed yesterday.

We also

5/16/14 - 1:07CV739 and 1:07CV953 - STATUS CONFERENCE
4

1

claims have been dismissed as well.

2

There's one remaining Defendant in the case.

That's

3

Mr. Wilson.

4

I believe we've reached an agreement to resolve the claim as

5

to him as well.

6

finalized, we'd be prepared to file a stipulation of

7

dismissal for Mr. Wilson as early as today, if not next

8

week.

9

We spoke briefly before the hearing outside and

And so subject to that agreement being

THE COURT:

Mr. Wilson, you're representing

10

yourself pro se.

11

pending with respect to joining in a motion for judgment on

12

the pleadings as to the Defendants Gottlieb and Himan and

13

you filed separate motions to dismiss for various bases, are

14

you acknowledging to the Court at this time that your case

15

is to the point of being resolved and just waiting some

16

additional procedure matters in terms of dismissal?

17
18

MR. WILSON:

Yes, sir.

As to the Evans case, yes,

sir.

19
20

To the extent your matters were still

THE COURT:

All right, sir.

Anything further, Mr. Wilson or Mr. Manning concerning

21

Evans?

22

and I have no reason to doubt that, then all the matters

23

that were involved in the Evans case would be disposed of by

24

your announcement today.

25

If what you're presenting to the Court is correct,

MR. MANNING:

That's correct, Your Honor.

5/16/14 - 1:07CV739 and 1:07CV953 - STATUS CONFERENCE
5

1

THE COURT:

All right, sir.

To that extent, the

2

Court would ask again of Mr. Wilson, do you understand that,

3

to the extent it's been announced there has been some

4

resolution of your matters, that would be the only thing

5

awaiting the Court's determination, receiving a dismissal?

6

There would not be any additional proceedings regarding any

7

defenses that you have asserted or motions you have

8

asserted.

9

MR. WILSON:

10

THE COURT:

11

MR. WILSON:

12

THE COURT:

Yes, sir.
You acknowledge that at this time?
I do, sir.
With that, that completes the matter

13

of Evans versus Durham and others.

14

your diligence in working toward a speedy resolution in that

15

matter.

16

MR. MANNING:

17

THE COURT:

18
19

I certainly appreciate

Thank you, Your Honor.
With that, unless you have some reason

to stay, I would be glad to excuse you at this point.
MR. MANNING:

I don't believe we have anything

20

further, Your Honor.

Thank you.

21

THE COURT:

All right.

22
23

Mr. Wilson, as you're acknowledging, you will stay for
the purposes of the McFadyen matter.

24

MR. WILSON:

25

THE COURT:

I'm sorry.

I didn't understand.

You will stay for purposes of the

5/16/14 - 1:07CV739 and 1:07CV953 - STATUS CONFERENCE
6

1
2
3
4
5

McFadyen matter since you are involved in that.
MR. WILSON:

Yes.

(Mr. Manning, Mr. Davant, and Mr. Fialko left the
courtroom.)
THE COURT:

In terms of the McFadyen matters,

6

again, we have not had as much resolution as far as I know,

7

but I'll let the parties tell me where you are.

8
9

In my review of the matters, it would appear that
what's currently before the Court -- and the Court may be

10

prepared to consider some of that fairly shortly.

But it

11

would appear that Claim 18 against Defendants Brodhead,

12

Steel, Dzau, and one other defendant that is still before

13

the Court -- that's Burness, I believe -- and Duke

14

University and Duke Systems.

15

contract relating to disciplinary policies to the extent

16

it's alleged Duke did not follow their own policies -- back

17

to Count 18, it would appear it's an obstruction of justice

18

claim, except for Mr. Wilson, which seemed to be tied to the

19

criminal investigation.

20

criminal matter; but as to the other defendants that I

21

named, it seems to be an allegation relating to civil

22

obstruction of justice or affecting civil remedies.

23

indicated, Count 21, breach of contract relating to

24

disciplinary matters; Count 24, fraud against the Defendants

25

Graves, Dean, Drummond, Smith, and Duke University to the

Count 21, the breach of

That and Ms. Levicy is tied to the

As I

5/16/14 - 1:07CV739 and 1:07CV953 - STATUS CONFERENCE
7

1

extent there is an allegation that -- representation that

2

certain matters had not been presented to the state

3

attorney -- state attorney and investigators; Count 41, to

4

the extent there's some still some constitutional claim

5

against the City.

6

As you address that from the Plaintiffs' perspective,

7

you can acknowledge whether or not those are the matters

8

based upon your understanding and we'll just go from there.

9

Yes, sir.

10

MR. EKSTRAND:

Yes, sir.

Your Honor, Bob Ekstrand

11

on behalf of the Plaintiffs.

12

the gist of what's remaining.

13

are -- there is a -- the negligent hiring retention --

14

THE COURT:

15

MR. EKSTRAND:

16

THE COURT:

17

MR. EKSTRAND:

18

THE COURT:

19

MR. EKSTRAND:

I think you have essentially
I believe, in addition, there

Yes, sir.
-- claim against --

In Count 32.
Yes, sir.

I did not include that one.
Yes, sir.

And with respect to the

20

obstruction of justice, you're correct that there are --

21

there's more than one factual basis for that and I think

22

you've articulated the two that are going forward.

23

are pending motions with respect to Count 1, which is a -- a

24

Section 1983 claim for -- arising out of the same facts that

25

give rise to the obstruction of justice claim and the state

There

5/16/14 - 1:07CV739 and 1:07CV953 - STATUS CONFERENCE
8

1

constitutional claim.

2

the -- you have articulated everything that we have in our

3

material going forward.

4

THE COURT:

Beyond that, Your Honor, you have

Count 1, as I recall, involved a

5

question of whether or not you had earlier conceded that

6

that would go away as a result of the Court of Appeals'

7

decision after the Supreme Court had made some

8

determination.

9

MR. EKSTRAND:

10
11

Was that the essence of Count 1?

THE COURT:

That is the essence of Count 1.

All right, sir.

As a summary matter,

anything the Defendants wish to say at this point?

12

MR. SUN:

May it please the Court, Paul Sun for

13

the Duke defendants.

14

the claims that remain.

15

Mr. McLamb will address it for his client, a motion for

16

judgment on the pleadings.

17

recited by the Court are the ones that we understand remain

18

in the case.

19

Your Honor has outlined the case -There is as to Count 18, and

But those -- those claims

Thank you.

MR. MCLAMB:

Dan McLamb, Your Honor.

I concur

20

with Mr. Sun and Mr. Ekstrand.

21

pending with respect to Counts 18 and 32 on behalf my

22

clients.

23

THE COURT:

We have 12(c) motions

Have you made any particular filings

24

with respect to that, Mr. McLamb, at this point?

25

appear that there's a question over what basis the

It would

5/16/14 - 1:07CV739 and 1:07CV953 - STATUS CONFERENCE
9

1

constitutional claim remains if there's been some

2

disposition of all individual City defendants.

3

MR. MCLAMB:

Let me see if I follow the Court.

4

Count 18 is the obstruction of justice claim.

5

the negligent retention claim.

6

THE COURT:

7

City.

Count 32 is

And I may have been speaking of the

That's my question for the City next.

8

MR. MCLAMB:

9

THE COURT:

Okay.
But to the extent -- did you have

10

anything further with respect to Count 18 to the extent

11

that's --

12
13

MR. MCLAMB:

It's been fully briefed, Your Honor,

and I think we're awaiting the Court's decision.

14

THE COURT:

All right.

15

Yes, I believe I --

16

MR. GILLESPIE:

17

THE COURT:

Thank you.

18

21

-- was looking at my notes on the

City, but I'll let you respond to that.

19
20

Your Honor --

MR. GILLESPIE:

Good morning, Your Honor.

Reggie

Gillespie for the City.
The only claim against the City in this case is a state

22

law claim under the North Carolina Constitution.

23

Count 41.

24

to that claim.

25

state law claim.

That's

As to Count 41, the City is the only defendant as
So the City is here for one claim.
It's Count 41.

It's a

5/16/14 - 1:07CV739 and 1:07CV953 - STATUS CONFERENCE
10

1
2

THE COURT:

Have you filed something particularly

with respect to that?

3

MR. GILLESPIE:

4

THE COURT:

5

MR. GILLESPIE:

Yes, sir.

Is that currently before the Court?
Yes, Your Honor.

We filed a

6

motion for judgment on the pleadings as to that count and

7

the Plaintiffs filed a response on Tuesday of this week.

8

THE COURT:

9

All right, sir.

So generally where are we in terms of any efforts to

10

try to resolve this matter?

11

Mr. Ekstrand?

12

MR. EKSTRAND:

Where are we at this point,

Your Honor, unfortunately at the

13

same spot.

When we left here last, there was a 60-day

14

window where we expressed our interest in discussing any

15

settlement.

16

Defendants join in the discussion together for the first

17

time.

18

defendants but not yet with the City in the last discovery

19

proceeding on the fraud claim and the breach of contract

20

claim.

21

discussion.

22

three different motions that we've had to respond to and

23

haven't had any conversations about settling it during that

24

time.

25

discussion.

We actually raised the idea of having all the

We've already gone down that path with the Duke

In the interim, we have -- we have not had any
We've raised it, but we've instead received

So we're still in the same place, still open to

5/16/14 - 1:07CV739 and 1:07CV953 - STATUS CONFERENCE
11

1

THE COURT:

In terms of just generally -- and the

2

Court, as I said, fairly shortly will make some rulings.

3

But particularly as to Mr. Wilson in terms of the counts

4

that remain against him, the Court is concerned -- even

5

though you identified Count 5 as being the one that you were

6

conceding, Count 1 seemed to be at issue as well.

7

But in terms of Count 18 in particular, if it involves

8

obstruction of justice, similar conduct that Gottlieb and

9

Himan were involved in, the Court's analysis -- even though

10

Gottlieb and Himan may be out of the case at this point, the

11

Court's analysis of Mr. Wilson's case may, of necessity,

12

discuss Gottlieb and Himan even though they're out just

13

because of his motion to join in to that.

14

aware of that.

Just to make you

15

Do you wish to be heard since -- you've already briefed

16

that somewhat, but do you wish to be heard to the extent the

17

Court is indicating to you that whatever ruling it might

18

have made with respect to Gottlieb and Himan, may also

19

affect the Court's consideration in Mr. Wilson's case?

20

MR. EKSTRAND:

Your Honor, I think -- the only

21

thing I'd what to emphasize is that we did want to have

22

conversations with all the Defendants about their status in

23

the case.

24

like to do that and we'll -- you know, we intend to have

25

that conversation with Mr. Wilson to the extent that the

Mr. Wilson is included in those.

We still would

5/16/14 - 1:07CV739 and 1:07CV953 - STATUS CONFERENCE
12

1

Court leaves open that claim against him before we do -- I'm

2

sorry.

3

him before we do, obviously that will resolve the case

4

against him, but we still have every intention to have a

5

conversation with him about his continuing status in the

6

case.

If the Court were to eliminate that claim against

7

But as to the substance, you know, what the Fourth

8

Circuit has ruled with respect to police officers being sued

9

for obstruction of justice, we've briefed that fully and I

10

think our point is essentially there's a limited holding to

11

police officers and obstruction of justice.

12

that Mr. Wilson qualifies.

13

North Carolina Supreme Court would carve out that exception.

14

I don't think they've carved it out in the first place, but

15

I don't think that they would extend what the Fourth Circuit

16

has ruled to apply to assistants, to district attorneys who

17

are involved in the obstruction of justice.

18
19

THE COURT:

I also don't think that our

Are we talking about initiation or are

we talking about participation at this point?

20

MR. EKSTRAND:

21

THE COURT:

22

I don't think

Participation.

Do you think that's still open after

the Farm Bureau case?

23

MR. EKSTRAND:

I do.

I do.

I think under -- yes,

24

I do.

I think that his participation in the ongoing

25

conspiracy as a latecomer is still a viable theory.

5/16/14 - 1:07CV739 and 1:07CV953 - STATUS CONFERENCE
13

1

THE COURT:

All right.

Counsel, to the extent

2

I've opened the door for some discussion of that -- and it

3

may involve Ms. Levicy as well.

4

18 as relates to that allegation or factual pattern, I've

5

opened the door.

6

well.

7

opportunity if you wish to follow up somewhat, particularly

8

in view of the argument the Plaintiff is now making.

9

To the extent that -- Count

Mr. Ekstrand, I'll hear from the others as

I know you've filed briefs, but I'm giving you this

MR. SUN:

May it please the Court, let me

10

advise -- because the Court asked about settlement

11

discussions.

12

through and the Court is aware of a mediation process; and

13

our mediator, Mr. Harkavy, declared an impasse.

14

Court's encouragement at the last status conference hearing,

15

we contacted Mr. Harkavy promptly and invited him to

16

reinitiate discussions because that's the -- that's the best

17

way we thought to see if there were discussions worth having

18

and we've heard nothing in that regard substantively in

19

response to that.

As we advised the Court before, we did go

But at the

So I wanted to let the Court know that.

20

And with the Court's permission, I think Mr. McLamb is

21

the one properly to address the county team legal arguments

22

for Your Honor.

23
24
25

Thank you.

THE COURT:

Mr. McLamb, I keep passing over you.

I'll hear from you.
MR. MCLAMB:

And you can hear from me, Your Honor,

5/16/14 - 1:07CV739 and 1:07CV953 - STATUS CONFERENCE
14

1

only to the extent you ask that you need to hear from me.

2

do think we fully briefed our position on that.

3

particular question that the Court has?

4

THE COURT:

No, sir.

I

Was there a

Just giving you an

5

opportunity to respond to anything Mr. Ekstrand might have

6

added.

7

MR. MCLAMB:

No, sir.

I'm content.

I'll be happy

8

to address any questions you have, but I think we've argued

9

that in our briefs.

10

that relates to our arguing that motion.

11
12

I don't hear anything specific from him

THE COURT:

Yes, sir.

Anything further,

Mr. Gillespie?

13

MR. GILLESPIE:

Well, Your Honor, Count 18 is not

14

directed to the City, so I don't have anything to add or

15

subtract from that.

16

think relating to -- I want to make sure I fully answer the

17

Court's question as to Count 41, at least I've attempted to,

18

as far as its status.

19

that?

20

The Court did have a question earlier I

Did the Court have a question about

That is the only count pending against the City.
THE COURT:

Yes, sir.

All right.

Nothing else

21

appearing, I've indicated, to the extent the matter is

22

remaining, what the trial date may be.

23

the extent there's any need for discovery matters, you

24

should take care of that before that time.

25

has been set.

In the interim, to

The trial date

As to any matters remaining, the Court may

5/16/14 - 1:07CV739 and 1:07CV953 - STATUS CONFERENCE
15

1
2

continue to rule on this matter.
And I may have made inadvertent reference to Farm

3

Bureau h\as relates to these matters, but I believe that

4

related to the malicious prosecution charge in terms of the

5

elements there.

6

All right.

7

Gentlemen, anything further?

Gentlemen or

ladies, anything further?

8

MR. GILLESPIE:

Your Honor, I just wanted the

9

Court to be aware, with regard to the City's participation

10

and role in this case, this case was stayed as to the City

11

until just recently.

12

as to the count asserted against the City.

13

There's been no discovery whatsoever

We view the City's -- the case against the City on a

14

decidedly different track than the remainder of this case;

15

and based on that and for other reasons, we have filed a

16

motion to sever the count as to the City.

17

filed a few weeks ago.

18

response has run yet.

19

of that.

20

we're on a very different track.

21

certainly not feasible from our perspective.

22

appropriate resolution for that is for a severance, and so

23

we have filed a motion and brief in support of that.

That motion was

I don't think the deadline for
I simply wanted the Court to be aware

From the City's perspective, like I said, we think

24

THE COURT:

25

MR. EKSTRAND:

An October trial date is
We think the

Yes, sir, I'll hear from you.
We will -- we'll brief the motion

5/16/14 - 1:07CV739 and 1:07CV953 - STATUS CONFERENCE
16

1

to sever, our opposition to it, but I think, Your Honor,

2

this case has been alive and at notice to the City.

3

had notice of all the allegations for quite some time.

4

think that an October trial date will, I'm sure, test all of

5

us, but we stand prepared to proceed through discovery and

6

do what we need to do so that we are ready.

7

the Defendants to do the same to the extent the Court --

8
9
10

THE COURT:

They've
I

We expect all

Will your response in writing be

substantially different than that, Mr. Ekstrand, in terms of
motion to sever?

11

MR. EKSTRAND:

Hopefully it will be a little more

12

articulate, but we will oppose it and we'll deal more with

13

the authorities with respect to severing a defendant at this

14

stage.

15

THE COURT:

I was trying to give you a hint.

If

16

you said you've said enough, then I'm prepared to rule on

17

that at this time.

18

has said, but this matter has been ongoing for some time and

19

I would not intend to sever the City.

20

I've considered what the Defendant City

You'll just have to pick up speed a little bit in terms

21

of filing any discovery that you need to file.

22

pursue that with the magistrate judge to the extent you need

23

expedited discovery.

24

the record, I would deny your motion to sever.

25

You can

But just since you're all here, for

MR. GILLESPIE:

Your Honor, we certainly respect

5/16/14 - 1:07CV739 and 1:07CV953 - STATUS CONFERENCE
17

1

and appreciate the Court's consideration.

2

would look at the reasons for it.

3

District itself, severance is appropriate to avoid confusion

4

and prejudice; and we think we've made the case for that in

5

our motion and brief; and we hope the Court would take a

6

look and consider that before it denies the motion.

7

obviously yield gracefully to whatever ruling this Court

8

makes, and we'll respect and adhere to that.

9

We hope the Court

In this court, Middle

We

But we are in a position, we believe, of prejudice

10

given the way the case is.

11

Plaintiffs made a -- filed a 428 page, 1,300 allegation

12

complaint that largely has been disposed of.

13

years to do that, but ultimately the bulk of this case has

14

gone away as to the City.

15

forward on discovery, so we do want an opportunity to defend

16

ourselves.

17

to whatever ruling this Court makes.

18

It's not our fault that the

It took seven

There's never been anything going

Again, though, we respect and yield gracefully

THE COURT:

I will review it and particularly will

19

give -- how much time do you need to file any additional

20

response, Mr. Ekstrand?

21

the Court could consider this matter in a timely fashion.

22

MR. EKSTRAND:

I would want to expedite that so

If you could give me until -- well,

23

through Wednesday, I believe I could have it fully briefed

24

to you by then.

25

THE COURT:

All right, sir.

The Court will delay

5/16/14 - 1:07CV739 and 1:07CV953 - STATUS CONFERENCE
18

1

any formal ruling, but just giving you an indication of how

2

the Court feels at this point in terms of this matter having

3

been continued against all the parties.

4

surprises here in terms of what the arguments are, but if --

5

with the Plaintiff agreeing to have until Wednesday, the

6

21st, to file its response, then the Court will allow that

7

as an expedited time frame and would consider formally the

8

motion to sever at that time.

9

MR. SUN:

10

There's been no

Your Honor, may I address two other

points briefly with regard to the trial?

11

THE COURT:

12

MR. SUN:

Yes, sir.
One, with respect I think to both

13

parties, we would benefit to the extent the Court is able to

14

give us a specific trial date.

15

Duke defendants and Mr. Ekstrand can certainly speak for his

16

clients.

17

defendants remaining on the specific counts, including the

18

president of the university; and so just for planning

19

purposes -- and I know the Court has other things to balance

20

as well, but I'd ask that too.

21

can speak to that, but he's got a client -- one of his

22

clients, at least the last I knew, was in the military.

23

those kind of things take some planning and the like.

24

the extent the parties could ask for that, we would.

25

I'll speak first for the

There are, obviously, a number of individual

Again, I know Mr. Ekstrand

So
So to

And then, second, Your Honor, as the Court has -- has

5/16/14 - 1:07CV739 and 1:07CV953 - STATUS CONFERENCE
19

1

acknowledged in going through this process and setting up

2

the sequence of events, the -- the pending motion on the

3

Count 18, obstruction of justice claim, will obviously

4

affect what discovery goes forward.

5

Court has recognized that in the way it's sequenced things.

6

We're set up with our 26(f) conference with Judge Peake next

7

Friday and I -- again, the parties would clearly benefit

8

from guidance from the Court on -- to the extent we get

9

further comments from the Court on the claims that are going

10
11

And so, again, the

forward and specifically Count 18.
Thank you, Your Honor.

12

THE COURT:

13

MR. WILSON:

14

just a clarification.

15

that, are they to be heard today or at another time or --

16

THE COURT:

All right, sir.
Yes, sir.

Mr. Wilson.

In respect to my Count 18,

The motions that have been filed on

As indicated at the suggestion of the

17

other parties, the Court is in the process of making a

18

determination as to those claims and will be filed as a part

19

of the order.

20

argument -- any specific argument on that, but the Court

21

will be prepared shortly to enter an order as to all matters

22

that are pending.

Everyone may not have come prepared today for

23

MR. WILSON:

All right.

24

THE COURT:

25

MR. GILLESPIE:

Thank you, sir.

Anything further, counsel?
Your Honor, with regard to the

5/16/14 - 1:07CV739 and 1:07CV953 - STATUS CONFERENCE
20

1

City's pending judgment for motion on the pleadings, I just

2

want to make the Court aware that is almost ripe for

3

consideration.

4

to, provide a reply orally.

5

shortly on that as well, however the Court wants to proceed,

6

but we do want the Court to be aware we do have a

7

dispositive Rule 12(c) motion pending.

8
9

I certainly could today, if the Court wanted

THE COURT:

We can formally file a reply

All right, sir.

Has the -- I'll let

you proceed as you're proceeding now and I'll consider that

10

to the extent I need to do anything further as a part of a

11

written order to you.

12
13

MR. GILLESPIE:

and file a written response.

14

THE COURT:

15

MR. GILLESPIE:

16

Yes, sir.
Yes, sir, Your Honor.

We'll be

glad to do that.

17

THE COURT:

18

MR. SUN:

19

I take it you want me to go ahead

Honor.

Anything further, counsel?
Nothing for the Duke defendants, Your

Thank you.

20

THE COURT:

21

MR. MCLAMB:

Mr. McLamb.
Nothing further, Your Honor.

I would

22

echo Mr. Sun's comments.

Obviously, my involvement in the

23

case is on those two claims, 18 and 32, so the Court's

24

ruling will have a big impact on what I do in the next few

25

months.

5/16/14 - 1:07CV739 and 1:07CV953 - STATUS CONFERENCE
21

1
2

THE COURT:

All right, sir.

Thank you very much.

Counsel, again, thank you for reporting back to the

3

Court.

We will proceed as we have been.

4

have a meeting with or hearing before Judge Peake.

5

intention to address those matters in a timely fashion so

6

that you can know what's before you at that time.

7

further?

8

MR. MCLAMB:

9

THE COURT:

10
11
12

I understand you
It is my

Anything

Nothing here, Your Honor.
We'll be in recess until further

notice.
MR. EKSTRAND:

Thank you, Your Honor.

(Proceedings concluded at 10:32 a.m.)

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

C E R T I F I C A T E
I, LORI RUSSELL, RMR, CRR, United States District Court
Reporter for the Middle District of North Carolina, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY:
That the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of
the proceedings had in the within-entitled action; that I
reported the same in stenotype to the best of my ability and
thereafter reduced same to typewriting through the use of
Computer-Aided Transcription.

20
21
Date:
22
23
24
25

6/16/14