Bates v. Winn, 2:16-cv-14324. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20190823c47
Visitors: 5
Filed: Aug. 22, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 22, 2019
Summary: ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S UNAUTHORIZED SUR-REPLY BRIEF (DE 39) ANTHONY P. PATTI , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff filed a "Motion in Responding [sic] to Defendants['] Reply Brief for Summary Judgment," i.e., a sur-reply. (DE 39.) The sur-reply is rejected by the Court for several reasons: (1) E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(d)(1), which concerns briefs required and permitted, does not permit the filing of a sur-reply; (2) Plaintiff did not seek permission to file a sur-reply, but, in any case, I would hav
Summary: ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S UNAUTHORIZED SUR-REPLY BRIEF (DE 39) ANTHONY P. PATTI , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff filed a "Motion in Responding [sic] to Defendants['] Reply Brief for Summary Judgment," i.e., a sur-reply. (DE 39.) The sur-reply is rejected by the Court for several reasons: (1) E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(d)(1), which concerns briefs required and permitted, does not permit the filing of a sur-reply; (2) Plaintiff did not seek permission to file a sur-reply, but, in any case, I would have..
More
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S UNAUTHORIZED SUR-REPLY BRIEF (DE 39)
ANTHONY P. PATTI, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff filed a "Motion in Responding [sic] to Defendants['] Reply Brief for Summary Judgment," i.e., a sur-reply. (DE 39.) The sur-reply is rejected by the Court for several reasons: (1) E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(d)(1), which concerns briefs required and permitted, does not permit the filing of a sur-reply; (2) Plaintiff did not seek permission to file a sur-reply, but, in any case, I would have denied such a request, as the Court has an adequate record and the matter is already under advisement; and (3) my practice guidelines, which are publicly available on the Court's website, provide, in part: "Additional briefing, including sur-replies, will NOT be permitted unless requested by the Court. The Court will strike any improperly filed sur-replies or other briefing not contemplated by the Local Rules."
In accordance with this ruling, the Clerk of the Court SHALL strike Plaintiff's August 12, 2019 filing (DE 39).
It is SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
