Case 3:14-cv-30211-MGM Document 131 Filed 12/21/15 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
WESTERN DIVISION
TAMARA GREEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants,
v.
Case No.: 3:14-cv-30211-MGM-DHH
WILLIAM H. COSBY, JR.,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.

EXPEDITED REVIEW
REQUESTED

PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SET DECEMBER 23, 2015 DEADLINE TO FILE REPLY

TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO THE COSBYS MOTION TO QUASH CAMILLE
COSBYS DEPOSITION SUBPOENA OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A
PROTECTIVE ORDER
COME NOW the Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1, and
respectfully request that the Court set a deadline of Wednesday, December 23, 2015, for
Defendant William H. Cosby, Jr., witness Camille Cosby, or anyone else to file a Reply to
Plaintiffs Opposition to the Cosbys Motion to Quash Camille Cosbys Deposition Subpoena or,
in the Alternative, for a Protective Order. Shortening the time to file a Reply is fair and
reasonable under the circumstances, and likely necessary for the Court to decide the Motion to
Quash sufficiently in advance of Mrs. Cosbys deposition to avoid its postponement.
Plaintiffs explain further, as follows:
1. On December 1, 2015, the day after discovery began in this action, Plaintiffs served
the Cosbys attorneys with a Notice of Taking Deposition of Camille Cosby, which scheduled
Mrs. Cosbys deposition for January 6, 2016. (After obtaining defense counsels representation
that they were authorized to accept service on behalf of Mrs. Cosby, Plaintiffs e-mailed a
subpoena to defense counsel on December 9, 2015.)

Case 3:14-cv-30211-MGM Document 131 Filed 12/21/15 Page 2 of 4

2. The Cosbys then waited 17 days to file a Motion to Quash, on December 18, 2015,
i.e., the last possible date they could file their Motion with an Opposition due date (January 4,
2016) still falling before the scheduled deposition date.
3. Had Plaintiffs taken the full time for filing their Opposition that they were entitled to,
this would have left only two days for the Court to decide the Cosbys Motion to Quash. In other
words, the Cosbys waited long enough to file their Motion to Quash, to almost ensure that Mrs.
Cosbys deposition would have to be postponed.
4.

In an attempt to avoid that outcome, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition on December

21, 2015, shortly before the filing of the instant Motion, i.e., the next business day after the
Cosbys filed their Motion to Quash.
5.

Under the Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 118, the Cosbys are entitled to file a five-

page Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition. The Scheduling Order does not set a deadline for any
Reply.
At 5:49 P.M. EST on December 21, Plaintiffs counsel sent an e-mail to defense

6.

counsel, requesting that defense counsel agree to a Reply deadline of December 23, 2015. About
one hour later, defense counsel replied in the negative.
In order to ensure that the Court can dispose of the Cosbys Motion to Quash soon

7.

enough for Mrs. Cosbys deposition to go forward as scheduled, Plaintiffs propose that the Court
set a Reply deadline of December 23. This is appropriate for several reasons:

The Cosbys unduly delayed filing their Motion to Quash.

Plaintiffs filed a 13-page Opposition within the space of one business day. The
Cosbys should be able to file a 5-page Reply within two business days.

Plaintiffs respectfully submit that a review of the Cosbys Motion to Quash and
Plaintiffs Opposition thereto will quickly demonstrate that the Motion to Quash
is meritless. There is little more for the Cosbys to say in their Reply.
2

Case 3:14-cv-30211-MGM Document 131 Filed 12/21/15 Page 3 of 4

Moreover, the Cosbys should not benefit from an ill-founded Motion to Quash by
needlessly forcing the postponement of Mrs. Cosbys deposition. This is
particularly so because the calendar of lead counsel, Joseph Cammarata, Esquire
(located in the District of Columbia), is extremely crowded until March of 2016.
If Mrs. Cosbys deposition is postponed, it likely will have to be rescheduled for
months later.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court set a deadline of December
23, 2015, for any person to file a Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to the Cosbys Motion to Quash
Camille Cosbys Deposition Subpoena or, in the Alternative, for a Protective Order.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Joseph Cammarata____
Joseph Cammarata, Esquire
Ira Sherman, Esquire
Matthew W. Tievsky, Esquire
CHAIKIN, SHERMAN, CAMMARATA &
SIEGEL, P.C.
The Law Building
1232 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Ofc: (202) 659-8600
Fax: (202) 659-8680
E-mail: joe@dc-law.net
Attorneys for All Plaintiffs

LOCAL RULE 7.1(a)(2) CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that, as set forth above, Plaintiffs counsel conferred with defense counsel in
good faith, in an attempt to resolve or narrow the issue presented by the instant Motion. Counsel
could not reach an agreement.
/s/ Joseph Cammarata____
Joseph Cammarata, Esquire

Case 3:14-cv-30211-MGM Document 131 Filed 12/21/15 Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 21st day of December, 2015, a copy of the foregoing
Plaintiffs Motion to Set December 23, 2015 Deadline to File Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to the
Cosbys Motion to Quash Camille Cosbys Deposition Subpoena or, in the Alternative, for a
Protective Order, was served by CM/ECF upon:
John J. Egan
Egan, Flanagan & Cohen, PC
67 Market Street
P.O. Box 9035
Springfield, MA 01102
Christopher Tayback
Marshall M. Searcy, III
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
865 South Figueroa
10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Monique D. Pressley
The Pressley Firm
1629 K Street NW
Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036

/s/ Joseph Cammarata______

Joseph Cammarata, Esquire

Case 3:14-cv-30211-MGM Document 131-1 Filed 12/21/15 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
WESTERN DIVISION
TAMARA GREEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants,
v.
Case No.: 3:14-cv-30211-MGM-DHH
WILLIAM H. COSBY, JR.,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.

ORDER
Upon consideration of Plaintiffs Motion to Set December 23, 2015 Deadline to File Reply
to Plaintiffs Opposition to the Cosbys Motion to Quash Camille Cosbys Deposition Subpoena or,
in the Alternative, for a Protective Order, it is on this _____ day of December, 2015, hereby
ORDERED, that the Motion is GRANTED; and, it is furthermore
ORDERED, that any person wishing to file a Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to the
Cosbys Motion to Quash Camille Cosbys Deposition Subpoena or, in the Alternative, for a
Protective Order, in compliance with the Scheduling Order, must do so no later than
December 23, 2015.

_______________________________________

The Honorable David H. Hennessy