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]

Download PDF
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

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?