SPINKA v. E.H., 14-cv-583-DRH-PMF. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20151006d87
Visitors: 1
Filed: Oct. 05, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 05, 2015
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON , District Judge . Pending before the Court is plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' reply brief filed under seal (Doc. 109). Defendants oppose the motion (Doc. 114). Based on the following, the Court denies the motion to strike. Local Rule 7.1(c) Local Rule 7.1(c) allows for the filing of a reply brief, even though they are "not favored," and requires the filer to state exceptional circumstances that justify the reply brief. The Rule does not indicate what circu
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON , District Judge . Pending before the Court is plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' reply brief filed under seal (Doc. 109). Defendants oppose the motion (Doc. 114). Based on the following, the Court denies the motion to strike. Local Rule 7.1(c) Local Rule 7.1(c) allows for the filing of a reply brief, even though they are "not favored," and requires the filer to state exceptional circumstances that justify the reply brief. The Rule does not indicate what circum..
More
ORDER
DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' reply brief filed under seal (Doc. 109). Defendants oppose the motion (Doc. 114). Based on the following, the Court denies the motion to strike.
Local Rule 7.1(c) Local Rule 7.1(c) allows for the filing of a reply brief, even though they are "not favored," and requires the filer to state exceptional circumstances that justify the reply brief. The Rule does not indicate what circumstances qualify as "exceptional."
Plaintiff argues that none of the circumstances claimed by defendants justify their filing of the reply brief. Defendants contend that a reply brief is necessary to address the misstatements of the law made in plaintiff's response (Doc. 114). Here, the reply brief states that exceptional circumstances are present as plaintiff's memorandum in opposition sets forth "evidence not otherwise admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and makes material misrepresentations regarding the legal standards this court is to follow" that were not addressed in defendants' motion (Doc. 114). The Court has reviewed the pleadings and finds that defendants' reply brief is an appropriate reply brief contemplated by the Local Rules. Thus, the Court DENIES plaintiff's motion to strike defendants' reply brief (Doc. 109).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
