G.P.P., Inc. v. Guardian Protection Products, Inc.

Filing 193

ORDER STRIKING a Portion of Plaintiff's Brief in Response to the Court's Order. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 5/3/2017. (Timken, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 G.P.P., INC. d/b/a GUARDIAN INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 15 16 v. GUARDIAN PROTECTION PRODUCTS, INC., RPM WOOD FINISHES GROUP, INC., Defendants. _____________________________________/ 17 18 19 GUARDIAN PROTECTION PRODUCTS, INC., Counterclaimant, 21 v. 22 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER STRIKING A PORTION OF PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S ORDER (Doc. 191) 20 23 Case No. 1:15-cv-00321-SKO G.P.P., INC. d/b/a GUARDIAN INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS, Counter-defendant. _____________________________________/ On May 1, 2017, the Court entered an order directing the parties to “file a brief no longer 1 2 than two pages in length, in which the parties state the precise location in the docket of this case of 3 each purported “Addend[a]” that the Court should consider for purposes of addressing 4 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment” (the “Order”). (Doc. 189.) Plaintiff filed its 5 response to the Order on May 3, 2017 (“Plaintiff’s Brief”). (Doc. 191.) The first two paragraphs 6 of Plaintiff’s Brief are responsive to the Court’s Order. (See id. at 2.) The remainder of Plaintiff’s 7 Brief is not responsive to the Order and, instead, includes additional arguments following the 8 completion of the briefing regarding Defendants’ Successive Motion for Partial Summary 9 Judgment. (See id. at 2–3.) In other words, the remainder of Plaintiff’s Brief is a sur-reply. See, 10 e.g., Thomas v. Wilkinson, 1:15-cv-00527-LJO-GSA-PC, 2017 WL 262062, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11 18, 2017) (“A surreply, or sur-reply, is an additional reply to a motion filed after the motion has 12 already been fully briefed.” (citation omitted)). However, the Court has not granted leave to 13 Plaintiff to file a sur-reply relating to Defendants’ Successive Motion for Partial Summary 14 Judgment. As the infringing portion of Plaintiff’s Brief is not responsive to the Court’s Order and 15 16 Plaintiff failed to seek leave to file a sur-reply, the Court STRIKES all but the first two paragraphs 17 of Plaintiff’s Brief. (Doc. 191 at 2–3.) The Court shall not consider these infringing portions of 18 Plaintiff’s Brief when addressing Defendants’ Successive Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. 19 (Doc. 184.) 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: 23 May 3, 2017 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 2 .

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?