Filed: Jan. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 23, 2018
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER JOHN E. MARTIN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Responsive Motions Filed By Defendants as Document Numbers 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, and 148 [DE 149], filed by Plaintiff on January 17, 2018. Plaintiff requests an extension of time to respond to eight briefs and motions that were filed by various Defendants at Docket Entries 141 through 148, inclusive. On January 18, 2018, Defendants BP Produc
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER JOHN E. MARTIN , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Responsive Motions Filed By Defendants as Document Numbers 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, and 148 [DE 149], filed by Plaintiff on January 17, 2018. Plaintiff requests an extension of time to respond to eight briefs and motions that were filed by various Defendants at Docket Entries 141 through 148, inclusive. On January 18, 2018, Defendants BP Product..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
JOHN E. MARTIN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Responsive Motions Filed By Defendants as Document Numbers 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, and 148 [DE 149], filed by Plaintiff on January 17, 2018. Plaintiff requests an extension of time to respond to eight briefs and motions that were filed by various Defendants at Docket Entries 141 through 148, inclusive. On January 18, 2018, Defendants BP Products North America, Inc. and MC Industrial Inc. filed a response.
Plaintiff argues that she needs more time to respond to the eight documents, which were all filed the same day. The Responding Defendants consent to the extension with respect to five of the items, but argue that Plaintiffs should not be granted leave to file responses to the Defendants' Replies at Docket Entries 141, 144, and 145, because any such briefing would constitute a sur-reply.
There is no provision in the Local Rules for a sur-reply or other additional briefing. A party may file a sur-reply only by leave of the Court, which requires "the showing of some factor that justifies a deviation from the rule." Brunker v. Schwan's Home Serv., Inc., No. 2:04-CV-478, 2006 WL 3827046, *2 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 27, 2006) (citations omitted); see also Goltz v. Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac, 177 F.R.D. 638, 641-42 (N.D. Ind. 1997). Plaintiff has provided no reason why the circumstances in this case justify submission of any sur-replies.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Responsive Motions Filed By Defendants as Document Numbers 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, and 148 [DE 149]. The deadline for Plaintiff to respond to the motions at Docket Entries 142, 146, and 148 is extended to February 9, 2018. The deadline for Plaintiff to reply to the briefs at Docket Entries 143 and 147 is extended to February 9, 2018. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's request with respect to the replies at Docket Entries 141, 144, and 145.
SO ORDERED.
