PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., District Judge.

On March 26, 2018, the State filed its reply brief in support of its Motion to Dismiss PhRMA's Complaint. (ECF No. 24.) The State's reply brief misconstrues central allegations in the Complaint in a manner that is material to the Court's assessment of PhRMA's claim under the Dormant Commerce Clause. Because the Court submitted this motion on the briefs on January 29, 2018, (ECF No. 20), PhRMA will not have the opportunity to correct these errors for the Court at oral argument. PhRMA therefore respectfully requests this Court's leave to submit a short, targeted sur-reply for the limited purpose of clarifying these critical issues. PhRMA's proposed sur-reply is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

PhRMA is cognizant of the fact that sur-replies are not typical of this Court's practice, and is sensitive to the Court's heavy caseload. Accordingly, PhRMA's proposed sur-reply focuses only on clarifying issues that are absolutely essential to this Court's resolution of the motion to dismiss, and is limited to three pages. For the reasons described, good cause exists for PhRMA to file the attached sur-reply. To the extent the Court is not inclined to grant PhRMA's request for leave to file a sur-reply, PhRMA respectfully requests that the Court re-set this matter for oral argument so that these mischaracterizations can be addressed.

PhRMA's counsel attempted to contact counsel for the State on April 2, 2018, to determine whether the State opposes PhRMA's application for leave to file a sur-reply, but did not receive a response before the close of business that day.

ORDER

Good cause appearing, Plaintiff PhRMA is granted leave to file the sur-reply attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiff's Application for Leave to File Sur-Reply.

IT IS SO ORDERED.