Andrew L Moffett v. Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriff et al

Filing 36

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting 35 Motion Request for Copy of Defendants' Reply to His Opposition to Dispositive Motion; Denying 33 Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2014) Copy of Dkt. 29 mailed to Plaintiff along with this Order. [clerk fs]

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6

ANDREW L. MOFFETT,
Plaintiff,

7
8

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
SUR-REPLY; AND GRANTING HIS
REQUEST FOR A COPY OF
DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO HIS
OPPOSITION TO THEIR DISPOSITIVE
MOTION

v.

9

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPUTY GONZALEZ, et al.,

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

No. C 12-04359 YGR (PR)

Defendants.

/

11
12
13

Before the Court are Plaintiff's request for leave to file a sur-reply1 and request for a copy of
Defendants' reply to his opposition to their dispositive motion.

14

In response to the Court's January 30, 2013 Order of Service, Defendants filed a dispositive

15

motion. Plaintiff has opposed the motion, Defendants have filed a reply, and now Plaintiff requests

16

leave to file a sur-reply. He is seeking permission from this Court to do so, as required by the

17

Northern District of California's Local Rules. Specifically, Civil Local Rule 7-3 provides, in

18

pertinent part, that "once a reply is filed, no additional memoranda, papers or letters may be filed

19

without prior court approval." Civ. L. R. 7-3(d). In the present case, Plaintiff has previously been

20

given an opportunity to file an opposition to Defendants' dispositive motion. He was also granted an

21

extension of time to do so. As mentioned above, Plaintiff filed his opposition and Defendants filed

22

their reply. Therefore, Defendants' disposition motion is now submitted and ready for the Court's

23

review. Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has been given adequate opportunity to respond to

24

Defendants' dispositive motion, his motion for leave to file a sur-reply (Docket No. 33) is DENIED.

25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff seeks an extension "to file [his] objections to [Defendants'] motion to dismiss."
(Docket No. 33 at 1.) He has already filed his opposition to Defendants' dispositive motion, and
Defendants have filed their reply. Therefore, the Court construes Plaintiff's request to be a motion
for leave to file a sur-reply.

1

Plaintiff's request for a copy of Defendants' reply (Docket No. 35) is GRANTED. The Clerk

2

of the Court shall send Plaintiff a copy of the reply (Docket No. 29) along with his copy of this

3

Order.

4

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 33 and 35.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

DATED: January 31, 2014
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

G:\PRO-SE\YGR\CR.12\Moffet4359.denySUR-REPLY.wpd

2