Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Coffman Specialties, Inc., et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Defendants moved for leave to file a sur-reply to their opposition to a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that they had since obtained a supersedeas bond. The court granted the motion, allowing Defendants to file a sur-reply of no more than fifteen pages by May 13, 2026, in the interest of fairness.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants' ex parte motion for leave to file a sur-reply is granted.“Having considered the motion, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ ex parte request to file a surreply. (ECF No. 57.)” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard that granting leave to file a sur-reply is within its discretion and should be exercised in favor of fairness, particularly when new facts (the supersedeas bond) arise that were not available during the initial briefing. The order explicitly cites the 'interest of fairness' rationale, which is a recognized basis for granting such leave. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the discretionary standard for granting leave to file a sur-reply. It acknowledges the Plaintiff's objection that the new evidence (supersedeas bond) does not meaningfully enhance the arguments but overrides this by invoking the 'interest of fairness' doctrine, which is a valid and commonly applied rationale in this district. The court also appropriately limits the scope of the sur-reply to prevent re-litigation of already addressed arguments.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12
13 LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE Case No. 25-cv-00619-BAS-JLB 14 COMPANY, ORDER GRANTING 15 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 16 v. SUR-REPLY (ECF No. 57)
17 COFFMAN SPECIALTIES, INC., et al., 18 Defendants. 19 20 Before the Court is Defendants’ CTDM CO., LLC, Colleen T. Coffman, James A. 21 Coffman, Coffman Family Trust Dated 9/22/08, Coffman Specialties, Inc., DLTCM, LLC, 22 DT Trucking, LLC, LDTCM, LLC, Scripps Park West, LLC, Sky Trek, LLC ex parte 23 motion for leave to file sur-reply. (ECF No. 57.) 24 A decision to grant or deny leave to file a surreply is generally committed to the 25 “sound discretion” of the court. See Brady v. Grendene USA, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-0604-GPC- 26 KSC, 2015 WL 6828400, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2015); United States v. Venture One 27 Mortg. Corp., No: 13-CV-1872 W (JLB), 2015 WL 12532139, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 28 2015). Such discretion “should be exercised in favor of allowing a surreply only where a 1 || valid reason for such additional briefing exists, such as where the movant raises new 2 ||arguments in its reply brief.” Hill v. England, No. CVFO5869RECTAG, 2005 WL 3 |} 3031136, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2005). A court may also permit a surreply “in the interest 4 ||of fairness” even where the “reply brief [is] largely responsive to issues raised by [the 5 ||opposing part] in its opposition” brief. Sherman v. Yahoo! Inc., No. 13CV0041-GPC- 6 || WVG, 2015 WL 5604400, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2015) (permitting defendant to file 7 || surreply despite plaintiff's characterizations that arguments in the reply were not new). 8 Here, Defendants move to file a sur-reply so that the Court may consider the fact 9 || that Defendants have now obtained a supersedeas bond, which Defendants relied upon the 10 prospect of in their opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 57.) 11 || Though Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance Company contends that this newly discovered 12 || evidence does not meaningfully enhance the arguments raised in Defendants’ opposition 13 (ECF No. 58), the Court exercises its discretion to grant leave in the interest of fairness. 14 Having considered the motion, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ ex parte request to 15 || file a surreply. (ECF No. 57.) Defendants may file a surreply of not more than fifteen 16 pages no later than May 13, 2026. Defendants are advised not to use this surreply to 17 ||retread arguments already addressed in its opposition to the motion for partial summary 18 ||judgment. (ECF No. 43.) The Court will disregard any such arguments. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 || DATED: May 6, 2026 (yatta Bahar te H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~_9_