Cyntec Company, Ltd. v. Chilisin Electronics Corp. et al

Filing 311

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 308 administrative motion for leave to file sur-reply. (pjhlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2022)

Case 4:18-cv-00939-PJH Document 311 Filed 01/21/22 Page 1 of 1

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CYNTEC COMPANY, LTD.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

v.
CHILISIN ELECTRONICS CORP., et
al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-00939-PJH
ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY
Re: Dkt. No. 308

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

Before the court is defendant Chilisin’s administrative motion for leave to file a surreply to plaintiff Cyntec’s motion for permanent injunction. See Dkt. 308. Chilisin argues
that Cyntec raised a new argument in its reply brief, and argues that a sur-reply “is an
appropriate way for Chilisin to address Cyntec’s new argument.” Id. at 1.
Cyntec opposes the motion. See Dkt. 309. Cyntec argues that it was Chilisin that
raised the new argument in its opposition brief, and argues that “Cyntec’s response
thereto cannot justify the filing of a sur-reply by Chilisin.” Id. at 1.
The court concludes that Cyntec’s reply brief did not raise a new argument, and
instead simply responded to an argument raised in Chilisin’s opposition brief.
Accordingly, Chilisin’s administrative motion for leave to file a sur-reply is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 21, 2022
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge