BISHOP v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, 14-cv-1081-DRH. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20150304c39
Visitors: 23
Filed: Mar. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2015
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court for case management. On February 27, 2015, defendant Imerys Talc America, Inc. filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims (Doc. 65). Local Rule 7.1 (c) states in part: Reply briefs are not favored and should be filed only in exceptional circumstances. The party filing the reply brief shall state the exceptional circumstances. Here, none of the reply brief states the exceptional circumst
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court for case management. On February 27, 2015, defendant Imerys Talc America, Inc. filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims (Doc. 65). Local Rule 7.1 (c) states in part: Reply briefs are not favored and should be filed only in exceptional circumstances. The party filing the reply brief shall state the exceptional circumstances. Here, none of the reply brief states the exceptional circumsta..
More
ORDER
DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court for case management. On February 27, 2015, defendant Imerys Talc America, Inc. filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims (Doc. 65). Local Rule 7.1 (c) states in part:
Reply briefs are not favored and should be filed only in exceptional circumstances. The party filing the reply brief shall state the exceptional circumstances.
Here, none of the reply brief states the exceptional circumstances as to why a reply brief is needed. Furthermore, defendant's reply brief exceeds the five page limitation set by the local rules. See SDIL-LR 7.1(d). Thus, the Court STRIKES the reply.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
