U.S. v. PARNELL, 1:13-cr-12 (WLS). (2014)
Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20140423998
Visitors: 16
Filed: Apr. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 22, 2014
Summary: ORDER W. LOUIS SANDS, District Judge. Before the Court is the United States of America's Motion to File a Surreply to Correct Defendant Stewart Parnell's Misstatement of Law. (Docs. 145, 146.) 1 In the motion, the United States claims a sur-reply is warranted to respond to Defendant Stewart Parnell's argument that knowledge is not an essential element of the crimes charged against him. In general, sur-replies are not favored in this District. M.D. Ga. L. R. 7.3.1(b). Whether to grant leave
Summary: ORDER W. LOUIS SANDS, District Judge. Before the Court is the United States of America's Motion to File a Surreply to Correct Defendant Stewart Parnell's Misstatement of Law. (Docs. 145, 146.) 1 In the motion, the United States claims a sur-reply is warranted to respond to Defendant Stewart Parnell's argument that knowledge is not an essential element of the crimes charged against him. In general, sur-replies are not favored in this District. M.D. Ga. L. R. 7.3.1(b). Whether to grant leave t..
More
ORDER
W. LOUIS SANDS, District Judge.
Before the Court is the United States of America's Motion to File a Surreply to Correct Defendant Stewart Parnell's Misstatement of Law. (Docs. 145, 146.)1 In the motion, the United States claims a sur-reply is warranted to respond to Defendant Stewart Parnell's argument that knowledge is not an essential element of the crimes charged against him.
In general, sur-replies are not favored in this District. M.D. Ga. L. R. 7.3.1(b). Whether to grant leave to file a sur-reply is "purely discretionary and should generally only be allowed when `a valid reason for such additional briefing exists, such as where the movant raises new arguments in its reply brief.'" First Specialty Ins. Corp. v. 633 Partners, Ltd., 300 F. App'x 777, 788 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Fedrick v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 366 F.Supp.2d 1190, 1197 (N.D. Ga. 2005)).
After a review of the record and briefs, the Court will permit a three-page sur-reply to address Defendant's argument that knowledge is not an essential element of the offenses in the Indictment. Because Parnell raised that argument for the first time in his reply, the United States has not had the opportunity to respond to the argument. Therefore, the motion is GRANTED, and the United States may file a sur-reply no longer than three pages within seven (7) days of the entry of this Order.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Parnell filed a response brief in opposition to the Government's Motion to File Surreply. Having reviewed the response, the Court finds it unpersuasive. In any event, under this Court's local rules, Parnell was not permitted to file a response. M.D. Ga. L. R. 7.3.1(c) ("[N]o response to the motion [to file a sur-reply] shall be allowed.").
Source: Leagle
