Ronaldo Designer Jewelry, Inc. v. Cox, 1:17-CV-2-DMB-DAS. (2020)
Court: District Court, N.D. Mississippi
Number: infdco20200110a05
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jan. 09, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 09, 2020
Summary: ORDER DEBRA M. BROWN , District Judge . On February 27, 2019, Ronaldo Designer Jewelry, Inc., filed a motion "to strike a new argument ... in Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Response and Objeciton [sic] to Defendants' Motion to Exclude Testiomny [sic] of Experts ...." Doc. #301. Ronaldo contends that the relevant argument—that certain experts cannot testify because their reports have been designated as confidential—should be stricken because it was raised for the first time in the reply.
Summary: ORDER DEBRA M. BROWN , District Judge . On February 27, 2019, Ronaldo Designer Jewelry, Inc., filed a motion "to strike a new argument ... in Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Response and Objeciton [sic] to Defendants' Motion to Exclude Testiomny [sic] of Experts ...." Doc. #301. Ronaldo contends that the relevant argument—that certain experts cannot testify because their reports have been designated as confidential—should be stricken because it was raised for the first time in the reply. ..
More
ORDER
DEBRA M. BROWN, District Judge.
On February 27, 2019, Ronaldo Designer Jewelry, Inc., filed a motion "to strike a new argument ... in Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Response and Objeciton [sic] to Defendants' Motion to Exclude Testiomny [sic] of Experts ...." Doc. #301. Ronaldo contends that the relevant argument—that certain experts cannot testify because their reports have been designated as confidential—should be stricken because it was raised for the first time in the reply. Id. at 2. In the alternative, Ronaldo asks that it be granted leave to file a sur-reply addressing the new argument. Id. at 3. The defendants did not respond to the motion to strike.
"[A] court generally will not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief." Canal Ins. Co. v. XMEX Transp., LLC, 48 F.Supp.3d 958, 970 (W.D. Tex. 2014). Consistent with this rule, the Court will not consider the confidentiality argument challenged by Ronaldo. Accordingly, the motion to strike or file a sur-reply [301] is DENIED as moot. See Smith v. U.S. Customs & Border Protection, 741 F.3d 1016, 1020 n.2 (9th Cir. 2014) (denying as moot motion to strike new argument when argument not considered).
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
