Doe v. Merck & Co., Inc. et al

Filing 23

MINUTE ORDER denying 21 Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Surreply, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 2/15/12.(lsw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02680-RBJ-KLM
JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MERCK & CO., INC., and
MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Surreply
[Docket No. 21; Filed on February 13, 2012] (the “Motion”). On February 3, 2012,
Defendants filed a Motion to Submit Supplemental Authority [#17] in connection with
Plaintiff’s pending Motion to Proceed Anonymously [#2]. Defendants did not submit any
new evidence or additional legal argument in their motion; they simply submitted a copy of
one additional state-law opinion from New Jersey. See Ex. A [#17-1]. The Court granted
the Motion to Submit Supplemental Authority on February 9, 2012. See Minute Order
[#19].
As Plaintiff himself cites, “Generally, the nonmoving party should be given an
opportunity to respond to new material raised for the first time in the movant’s reply.”
Motion [#21] at 2 (quoting Green v. New Mexico, 420 F.3d 1189, 1196-97 (10th Cir. 2005)).
However, “material” includes new evidence and new legal arguments. See id. (citing
Doebele v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 342 F.3d 1117, 1139 n.13 (10th Cir, 2003)). Because
Defendants have only submitted supplemental authority without providing new evidence
or raising new legal arguments,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.
Dated: February 15, 2012