Plaintiffs Reply Brief

October 7th, 2022

This reply brief supports the Plaintiffs in Caekaert and Rowland in their request for a new scheduling order.

“Plaintiffs submit the following Reply in Support of their Motion for a New Scheduling Order (ECF Doc. 148, 149).

It appears Plaintiffs and Defendants WTNY and WTPA agree that a new scheduling order is appropriate. ECF Doc. 151, 152.1 However, since Plaintiffs filed their Motion, new discovery disputes have emerged. See ECF Doc. 153, 154. WTNY’s unwillingness to set depositions intended to shed light on its sweeping claims of testimonial privilege stand to further delay timely prosecution of this case, including Plaintiffs’ ability to thoroughly assess and brief challenges to WTNY’s privilege log. Id. As a result, Plaintiffs’ belief that they will be prepared to brief motions to compel evidence by December 1, 2022, is no longer realistic.

Given the additional motions practice now required to set depositions intended to understand WTNY’s sweeping claims of testimonial privilege, Plaintiffs do not know when they will be prepared to fully brief challenges to WTNY’s privilege log. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs are still requesting a new scheduling order that permits sufficient time to complete discovery after questions about the scope of WTNY’s claims of testimonial privilege, and the availability of evidence regarding the sexual abuse at issue in this case, are resolved.

DATED this 7th day of October, 2022.”