WESTERHEIDE v. HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE CO., 10-cv-471-MJR-PMF. (2012)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20120308a69
Filed: Mar. 07, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 07, 2012
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL J. REAGAN, District Judge. Before the Court are two motions related to the parties' respective motions for summary judgment. Defendants move to strike Doc. 75, Plaintiff's reply relative to her cross motion for summary judgment (Doc. 76). Defendant contends that Plaintiff has not offered good cause for filing a reply, as is required by Local Rule 7.1(d). Plaintiff seeks leave to file an amended reply, so as to include the required statement of good cause (Doc. 78). In light of
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL J. REAGAN, District Judge. Before the Court are two motions related to the parties' respective motions for summary judgment. Defendants move to strike Doc. 75, Plaintiff's reply relative to her cross motion for summary judgment (Doc. 76). Defendant contends that Plaintiff has not offered good cause for filing a reply, as is required by Local Rule 7.1(d). Plaintiff seeks leave to file an amended reply, so as to include the required statement of good cause (Doc. 78). In light of t..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN, District Judge.
Before the Court are two motions related to the parties' respective motions for summary judgment. Defendants move to strike Doc. 75, Plaintiff's reply relative to her cross motion for summary judgment (Doc. 76). Defendant contends that Plaintiff has not offered good cause for filing a reply, as is required by Local Rule 7.1(d). Plaintiff seeks leave to file an amended reply, so as to include the required statement of good cause (Doc. 78).
In light of the procedural history of this case, the multiple pending motions for summary judgment raising a myriad of issues, the Court sua sponte finds good cause for allowing Plaintiff to file a reply brief. The Court perceives no prejudice to Defendants and appreciates having the issues briefed as fully as possible, given the voluminous administrative record that must be reviewed and the numerous issues that must be addressed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's reply brief (Doc. 76) is DENIED, and Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended reply brief (Doc. 78) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
