Filed: May 18, 2015
Latest Update: May 18, 2015
Summary: ORDER CAROL MIRANDO , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court are Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 114), filed on May 13, 2015; and Plaintiffs' Objection to and Motion to Strike Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 115, "Motion to Strike"), filed May 13, 2015. Plaintiffs seek leave to file a reply of n
Summary: ORDER CAROL MIRANDO , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court are Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 114), filed on May 13, 2015; and Plaintiffs' Objection to and Motion to Strike Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 115, "Motion to Strike"), filed May 13, 2015. Plaintiffs seek leave to file a reply of no..
More
ORDER
CAROL MIRANDO, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court are Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 114), filed on May 13, 2015; and Plaintiffs' Objection to and Motion to Strike Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 115, "Motion to Strike"), filed May 13, 2015.
Plaintiffs seek leave to file a reply of no more than fifteen (15) pages to address new legal and factual arguments made in Defendants' response (Doc. 113). Doc. 114. As grounds for this motion, Plaintiffs seek to address Defendants' claims that Plaintiffs' failed to state a claim as to their amended causes of action and Defendants' allegations that Plaintiffs delayed discovery. Doc. 114.
"The purpose of a reply brief is to rebut any new law or facts contained in the opposition's response to a request for relief before the Court," Tardif v. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, No. 2:09-cv-537-FtM-29SPC, 2011 WL 2729145, *2 (M.D.Fla. July 13, 2011). "While parties may ask for leave to file a reply, they must show good cause." McDonald v. United States, No. 3:13-cv-168-J-37MCR, 2013 WL 3901871, *1 n.3 (M.D.Fla. July 29, 2013). Moreover, the Court will not grant leave to file a reply brief unless the reply will benefit the Court's resolution of the pending motion. See Schumann v. Collier Anesthesia, P.A., No. 2:12-cv-347-FtM-29CM, 2014 WL 1230644, *4 n.3 (M.D.Fla. Mar. 25, 2014) (denying leave to file a reply brief where such brief would not aid the Court's resolution of the underlying motion).
As Defendants' response appears to include "new law or facts", and because the proffered content of the reply would be beneficial to the Court's review of the pending Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 109), good cause exists to allow the Plaintiffs to file a reply in this case. Moreover, based on the recent Notice of Amended Certificate of Conference (Doc. 116), this motion appears to be unopposed. Although the Court normally limits reply briefs to 5-7 pages, Defendants exceeded the page limit allowable under Local Rules 3.01(b)1; and in lieu of striking Defendants' pleading, Plaintiffs will be allowed the additional 15 pages requested.2
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 114) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have up to and including May 26, 2015 to file their reply of no more than (15) fifteen pages.
2. Plaintiffs' Objection to and Motion to Strike Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 115) is DENIED AS MOOT.
3. The parties are reminded to adhere to the deadlines and directives set forth in the Amended Case Management and Scheduling Order (Doc. 103).
DONE and ORDERED.
