United States District Court, D. Nevada
February 3, 2014
COUNTRY STEVENS, Plaintiff,
HOWARD SKOLNIK, et. al., Defendants.
WILLIAM G. COBB, Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Reply in Support of Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 147.)
Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment on June 26, 2013. (Doc. # 138.) Plaintiff filed a response. ( See Docs. # 142 (affidavit), # 143 (brief in opposition).) Defendants subsequently filed their reply brief. (Doc. # 145.) At that point, the motion was considered fully briefed. Plaintiff subsequently filed a response to Defendants' reply. (Doc. # 146.)
Local Rule 7-2 contemplates the filing of a motion, opposition and reply briefs, but not a sur-reply, as Plaintiff has filed here. Plaintiff did not seek leave of court to file his sur-reply.
The court has reviewed the sur-reply, and the document itself provides no good cause justifying leave to file an additional brief. Instead, Plaintiff reiterates the arguments he asserted in his opposition brief with some elaboration. There is no argument asserted in Defendants' reply brief that Plaintiff could not have originally addressed in his opposition brief.
Accordingly, Defendants' motion to strike the sur-reply (Doc. # 147) is GRANTED and the Clerk shall STRIKE Plaintiff's sur-reply (Doc. # 146).
IT IS SO ORDERED.