ORDER

GEORGE FOLEY, Jr., Magistrate Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff United States of America's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Leave to File Surreply (#118), filed on May 28, 2013. Defendant Edith Gillespie ("Defendant") filed a Motion to Sever (#104) on May 1, 2013. Plaintiff filed a Response (#109) to the Motion to Sever (#104) on May 14, 2013. Defendant filed a Reply (#111) on May 20, 2013. Plaintiff now moves to file a surreply to Defendant's Reply (#111), alleging Defendant raised new arguments therein. Specifically, Defendant attached an Affidavit (#111-1) to her Reply (#111) that purportedly supports an argument for severance under United States v. Virgil1 that Defendant made in her original Motion (#104).

"A surreply may only be filed by leave of court, and only to address new matters raised in a reply to which a party would otherwise be unable to respond." Kanvick v. City of Reno, No. 3:06cv-00058-RAM, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24719, at *1 n.1 (D. Nev. Mar. 27, 2008). Because Defendant attached the Affidavit to her Reply and not to her original Motion (#104), Plaintiff was unable to address the Affidavit's sufficiency under Virgil. Furthermore, the Proposed Surreply (#118-1) addresses only the sufficiency of the Affidavit. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Surreply (#118) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file Plaintiff's Proposed Surreply (#118-1).