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)

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

.