Chytka v. Wright Tree Service, Inc.

Filing 137

MINUTE ORDER; Defendant's 130 Motion to Strike Plaintiff's 9/27/2012 Filing is GRANTED. Accordingly, it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Sur-reply 129 is STRICKEN, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 10/24/2012.(klmcd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00968-REB-KLM
KATHLEEN CHYTKA,
Plaintiff,
v.
WRIGHT TREE SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s
September 27, 2012 Filing [Docket No. 130; Filed October 15, 2012] (the “Motion”).
Throughout this litigation, the Court and Defendants have had great difficulty interpreting
Plaintiff’s filings, as the Court outlined in some detail in its Minute Order dated August 30,
2012 [#126]. Plaintiff’s September 27, 2012 filing [#129] is equally as confusing.
Defendant interprets the document as either an out-of-time Reply to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [#81] or an impermissible Sur-reply to Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [#115]. Looking at the face of the document in conjunction with the
correspondence between Plaintiff and Defendant, as attached by Plaintiff, the Court
interprets Plaintiff’s filing as a Sur-reply to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[#115], because she filed it immediately after receiving a copy of Defendant’s Reply [#128].
See [#129] at 12.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#130] is GRANTED. Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Sur-reply [#129] is STRICKEN. Surreplies are not contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules of
Practice. The Court is adequately advised of the issues on the parties’ present briefings.

Dated: October 24, 2012

1

2