IN RE JUNO THERAPEUTICS, INC., C16-1069 RSM. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20170519e61
Visitors: 9
Filed: May 18, 2017
Latest Update: May 18, 2017
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ , Chief District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Response to Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority. Dkt. #70. The Court agrees with Defendants that their Notice of Supplemental Authority (Dkt. #68), complied with Local Rule 7(n) by not containing argument, and that therefore "there is nothing to which Plaintiffs need to respond." Dkt. #71 at 2. Any respon
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ , Chief District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Response to Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority. Dkt. #70. The Court agrees with Defendants that their Notice of Supplemental Authority (Dkt. #68), complied with Local Rule 7(n) by not containing argument, and that therefore "there is nothing to which Plaintiffs need to respond." Dkt. #71 at 2. Any respons..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, Chief District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Response to Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority. Dkt. #70. The Court agrees with Defendants that their Notice of Supplemental Authority (Dkt. #68), complied with Local Rule 7(n) by not containing argument, and that therefore "there is nothing to which Plaintiffs need to respond." Dkt. #71 at 2. Any responsive argument would constitute an improper surreply. The Court further finds that it need not adjust the noting date of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and that it can request supplemental briefing from the parties, if necessary, at a future date.
Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Response to Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority (Dkt. #70) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
