United States of America v. Fuess

Filing 26

MINUTE ORDER: Denying 25 Request that the September 7, 2016 hearing date be vacated, or in the alternative, that Plaintiff's counsel be permitted to appear telephonically at the hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks on 9/1/2016. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)

Page 1 of 1

MINUTES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: 15cv1148 BEN(RBB)
Time Spent:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. FUESS

HON. RUBEN B. BROOKS

CT. DEPUTY VICKY LEE

Rptr.

Attorneys
Plaintiffs

PROCEEDINGS:

☐ In Chambers

Defendants

☐ In Court

☐ Telephonic

On August 31, 2016, Plaintiff filed a “Reply Brief in Support of United States’ Motion to Compel Discovery
and Motion for Discovery Sanctions” (the “Reply”) [ECF No. 25]. There, the United States requests that the
September 7, 2016 hearing date be vacated, or in the alternative, that Plaintiff’s counsel be permitted to appear
telephonically at the hearing. (Reply 2, ECF No. 25.) This request is improperly raised in the Reply. See
United States v. Boggi, 74 F.3d 470, 478 (3d Cir. 1996) (noting the general practice is not to entertain
arguments first raised in a reply brief because it deprives the opposing party of an adequate opportunity to
respond). But even ignoring the propriety of raising this request in the Reply, the United States has not shown
good cause for this request. As a result, this request is DENIED.

DATE: September 1, 2016

IT IS SO ORDERED:
Ruben B. Brooks,
U.S. Magistrate Judge

cc: Judge Benitez
All Parties of Record