Iglesia Ni Cristo v. Cayabyab et al

Filing 132

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 130 PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPLY. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/19/2020.(blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2020)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

IGLESIA NI CRISTO,

9

Plaintiff,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

v.
LUISITO E CAYABYAB, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-00561-BLF
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPLY
[Re: ECF 130]

13
14
15
16

Briefing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was completed on February 10,
2020, when Defendants filed their reply brief. The motion is set for hearing on February 27, 2020.
On February 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed an administrative motion for leave to file a sur-reply.

17

Plaintiff asserts that a sur-reply is warranted because the Declaration of Restituto S. Lazaro was

18

inadvertently omitted from Plaintiff’s opposition, and Plaintiffs wish to respond to Defendants’

19

“evidentiary objections” and “misstatements of fact.” See Admin. Motion at 2, ECF 130. Plaintiff

20

attaches a proposed sur-reply brief that is ten pages in length. See Admin Motion Exh. A.

21

On February 14, 2020, Defendants filed a “limited opposition” to Plaintiff’s administrative

22

motion. Defendants state that they do not oppose Plaintiff’s request to belatedly file the

23

Declaration of Restituto S. Lazaro, as that declaration was omitted from Plaintiff’s opposition due

24

to inadvertence. However, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not provided a legitimate basis for

25

seeking leave to present additional written argument to the Court. Defendants point out that

26

ordinarily, material may be filed after the reply in only two circumstances. See Civ. L.R. 7-3(d).

27

First, when new evidence is submitted in the reply, the opposing party may file an objection to

28

reply evidence, not to exceed five pages of text. See id. Second, counsel may bring to the Court’s

1

attention a relevant judicial opinion published after the reply was filed. See id. Plaintiff’s request

2

for leave to file a sur-reply does not fall into either of these categories.

3

Plaintiff’s administrative is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s request to file the

4

inadvertently omitted Declaration of Restituto S. Lazaro and otherwise is DENIED. This Court’s

5

Civil Local Rules do not contemplate the filing of a sur-reply simply for the purpose of responding

6

to reply arguments. Plaintiff has not shown an adequate basis for deviation from the normal

7

briefing practice that gives the moving party the last word.

8

This order terminates ECF 130.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Dated: February 19, 2020
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2