Chen v. Illumina, Inc., et al.

Filing 88

ORDER Granting in Part and Denies in Part Joint Motion for Leave to File a Surreply [ECF No. 87 ]. Defendants' surreply, currently lodged as ECF No. 87-1, is considered filed. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 1/24/2019. (lrf)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

Case No.: 3:16-cv-3044-L-MSB

IN RE ILLUMINA, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENIES IN PART JOINT MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SURREPLY
[ECF No. 87]

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

Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for leave to file a surreply [ECF
No. 87]. When a party raises new arguments in a reply to an opposition, the court may
permit the other party to rebut the new arguments. See Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478,
1483 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, Plaintiff, for the first time, raises a new legal argument in its
reply to which Defendants request leave to file a surreply. The Court finds it prudent to
grant Defendants leave to file a surreply of no more than three pages. Although Plaintiff
premised its consent to the surreply on the opportunity to respond to the surreply, the Court
in its discretion finds no reason why Plaintiff requires further briefing on an issue it raised
late in the initial briefing schedule. As such, Plaintiff is not granted leave to file a response
to Defendants’ surreply.

28
1
3:16-cv-3044-L-MSB

1

For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the

2

parties’ joint motion.

3

considered filed.

Defendants’ surreply, currently lodged as ECF No. 87-1, is

4
5

Dated: January 24, 2019

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
3:16-cv-3044-L-MSB