Moriarty v. County of San Diego et al

Filing 108

ORDER Denying Leave to Supplement Briefing. The Clerk is directed to strike docket numbers 86 , 105 , and 106 from the docket. No more supplemental briefing is to be filed without leave. Signed by Chief Judge Larry Alan Burns on 4/17/2019. (jdt) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/17/2019: # 1 Stricken Document, # 2 Stricken Document, # 3 Stricken Document) (jdt).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHELLE MORIARTY,

Case No.: 17cv1154-LAB (AGS)
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO
SUPPLEMENT BRIEFING

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

15

Defendant.

16
17

Even after the motion for summary judgment (Docket no. 49) was full briefed and

18

taken under submission on December 5, 2018, the parties have continued to brief this

19

motion. On March 19, Defendant Dale Weidenthaler filed a notice of supplemental

20

authority, bringing two new decisions to the Court’s attention: Horton v. City of Santa

21

Maria, 915 F.3d 592 (9th Cir. 2019); and M.B. III v. California, 2019 WL 598994 (E.D.

22

Cal., Feb. 8, 2019). The notice also, however, included substantial arguments about the

23

application of both decisions. Then on April 16, Plaintiff filed a substantial response to

24

this notice. That same day, without leave, she also filed a substantial supplemental

25

response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, with both old and new

26

evidence attached. The opposition says that on March 4, 2019 she took the deposition of

27

Watch Commander McNeeley and discovered new evidence.

28
1
17cv1154-LAB (AGS)

1

The discovery cutoff date, however, was February 20, and neither Magistrate Judge

2

Schopler nor the undersigned judge gave her permission to take McNeeley’s deposition

3

late. Nor did anyone give her permission to file supplemental briefing based on the late

4

discovery. Judge Schopler granted leave to take four additional depositions (over and above

5

the usual limit), and to take them late—but all four were depositions of doctors, not

6

McNeeley. (See Docket no. 83 (granting leave to take depositions of Dr. Joshua, Dr.

7

mannis, Dr. Ra, and Dr. Badre by April 15, 2019, and denying the joint motion in all other

8

respects).)

9

The parties have not requested, and the Court has not granted, relief from local rules

10

limiting the number and type of briefs that may be filed. The parties have not requested

11

leave to file supplemental briefing, nor has the Court granted it.

12

The Court construes these filings as requests to entertain additional arguments and

13

to receive additional evidence. So construed, the motions are DENIED. The Court takes

14

notice of the two decisions mentioned in the notice of supplemental authority; it would

15

have considered all applicable law in any event, even in the absence of a notice. But the

16

arguments included in the notice are not properly before the Court. See Estate of Alvarado

17

v. Tackett, 2018 WL 1141502, at *1 (S.D. Cal., March 2, 2018) (treating substantial

18

document styled as “Notice of Supplemental Authority” as an unauthorized sur-reply,

19

which the Court has discretion to disregard). The Clerk is directed to strike docket numbers

20

86, 105, and 106 from the docket. No more supplemental briefing is to be filed without

21

leave.

22

It has come to the Court’s attention that counsel have been calling chambers seeking

23

procedural legal advice about contested matters, attempting to inform staff about mistakes

24

they think the Court has made, or raising other improper ex parte matters. They must stop

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2
17cv1154-LAB (AGS)

1

doing this, and are ORDERED to comply with Civil Local Rule 83.9 and the Court’s own

2

standing order, ¶ 14.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Date: April 17, 2019

6

__________________________
Hon. Larry A. Burns
Chief United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

17cv1154-LAB (AGS)