(PC)Calhoun v. Dela Cruz et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 01/18/2023 GRANTING-IN-PART and DENYING-IN-PART the 62 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff's request for an extension to file a sur-reply to 59 Reply is DENIED and Plaintiff is GRANTED 90 days to file a reply to 61 Opposition to Motion to Amend. (Spichka, K.)
Case 2:20-cv-02209-DAD-DB Document 64 Filed 01/19/23 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:20-cv-2209 DAD DB P
DELA CRUZ, et al.,
Plaintiff has requested an extension of time of ninety days to file a reply to defendants’
December 21, 2022, opposition to plaintiff’s December 19, 2022, motion to amend. Additionally,
plaintiff has requested an extension of time of ninety days to file a sur-reply to defendants’
December 19, 2022, reply in support of the July 28, 2022, motion for summary judgment.
Defendants have filed an opposition to plaintiff’s request for leave to file a sur-reply.
As to the motion for summary judgment, there is no right to file a further sur-reply
because the motion for summary judgment is already fully briefed with the motion, plaintiff’s
opposition, and defendants’ reply brief. See Local Rule 230(l). Nevertheless, district courts have
discretion to either permit or deny a further sur-reply. See U.S. ex rel. Meyer v. Horizon Health
Corp., 565 F.3d 1195, 1203 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirming district court’s refusal to accept untimely
materials it found constituted an inequitable sur-reply). Although courts generally grant leniency
Case 2:20-cv-02209-DAD-DB Document 64 Filed 01/19/23 Page 2 of 2
to pro se litigants, that lenience does not extend to permitting sur-replies as a matter of course.
Garcia v. Biter, 195 F. Supp. 3d 1131, 1134 (E.D. Cal. 2016). This court is not generally inclined
to permit sur-replies absent an articulation of good cause why such leave should be granted. See
Here, plaintiff does not set forth any reasons why he needs to file a sur-reply as to the
motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the request for extension of time will be denied as to
the filing of a sur-reply to defendants’ December 19, 2022, reply in support of their motion for
The court will grant plaintiff the requested extension of time to file a reply to defendants’
opposition to the motion to amend.
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 62) is granted in part and denied
in part, as set forth below.
2. Plaintiff is granted ninety days from the date of this order in which to file a reply to
defendants’ opposition to plaintiff’s motion to amend.
3. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time of ninety days to file a sur-reply to
defendants’ reply in support of their motion for summary judgment is denied.
Dated: January 18, 2023
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?