Raiser v. San Diego County
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Aaron Raiser v. County of San Diego (2023-02-08) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Aaron Raiser filed an ex parte application for leave to file a sur-reply to Defendants' reply brief in a civil action. The Court denied the application, finding that the arguments in the reply were responses to the opposition rather than new issues or evidence.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application to Allow Sur-Reply is denied.“The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard that sur-replies are disfavored and only permitted when new evidence or arguments are raised in the reply. The court found that the defendants' reply merely responded to the plaintiff's opposition, which is a standard and acceptable use of a reply brief. Therefore, the denial was appropriate. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the high bar for granting sur-replies and applies the cited district court authorities to the specific facts that the reply brief did not introduce new evidence or legal issues, but rather responded to the opposition. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the plaintiff's request.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON RAISER, Case No.: 19-cv-0751-GPC-KSC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX 13 v. PARTE APPLICATION TO ALLOW SUR-REPLY 14 SAN DIEGO COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants. [ECF Nos. 172, 173] 16 17 Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application for an Order to Allow a Sur-Reply. See 18 ECF Nos. 172, 173. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request. “The Court generally views 19 motions for leave to file a surreply with disfavor.” Garcia v. Biter, 195 F. Supp. 3d 1131, 20 1134 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (citations omitted); accord Viasat, Inc. v. Acacia Commc’ns, Inc., 21 No. 316CV00463BENJMA, 2018 WL 3198798, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2018). While 22 courts have discretion to permit or preclude a sur-reply, the discretion to permit sur- 23 replies should be exercised “only where a valid reason for such additional briefing 24 exists.” Viasat, 2018 WL 3198798, at *1. 25 A new argument or new evidence in a reply brief could be a valid reason for the 26 Court to grant a sur-reply. See, e.g., Banga v. First USA, NA, 29 F. Supp. 3d 1270, 1276 27 1 || (N.D. Cal. 2014) (citations omitted). But contrary to Plaintiffs characterization 2 || otherwise, the “new” arguments in Defendants’ Reply brief are merely responses to 3 || Plaintiff's Opposition brief, not new legal issues or new evidence. Cf Garcia, 195 F. 4 || Supp. 3d at 1134 (“Defendants, however, did not provide any new evidence in the reply 5 Plaintiffs opposition nor did Defendants raise new issues or arguments. Rather, 6 || Defendants cited to the record, their Motion, and various legal authorities and 7 ||substantively addressed those new issues raised by Plaintiff in his opposition.”); Great 8 || Am. Ins. Co. v. Berl, No. CV 17-03767 SJO, 2017 WL 8180627, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 9 2017) (“[A]n argument is not ‘new’ when it is made in response to an issue raised in an 10 || earlier briefing.’’). 11 Ultimately the Court views Plaintiff's request as simply “an attempt to have the 12 word on this issue,” a reason why courts “thoroughly disfavor” requests for sur- 13 ||replies. Viasat, 2018 WL 3198798, at *1. The Court rejects such requests, as it refuses 14 || to be “in the position of refereeing an endless volley of briefs.” Fedrick v. Mercedes- 15 || Benz USA, LLC, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1197 (N.D. Ga. 2005). 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 || Dated: May 17, 2021 2 Ss 19 Hon. athe Coke 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19-ev-0751-GPC-KSC