Vreeland v. Suthers

Filing 215

MINUTE ORDER. Motion for Leave to Respond to Defendant's Newly Raised Objection(s) and Issues Cleverly Hidden Within Defendant's Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment 213 is DENIED. Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Newly Raised Objection(s) and Issues Hidden Within Defendant's Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment 212 is STRICKEN. Entered by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 04/27/15.(jhawk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 12–cv–01921–PAB–KMT

DELMART E.J.M. VREELAND, II,
Plaintiff,
v.
SERGEANT GRIGGS, CDOC/BVCF Mailroom,
Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA
Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to Respond to Defendant’s Newly Raised Objection(s) and Issues
Cleverly Hidden Within Defendant’s Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment”
(Doc. No. 213) is DENIED. The Local Rules do not allow for the filing of a surreply brief. See
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d). The decision to grant leave to file a surreply falls within the
discretion of the district court. Pippin v. Burlington Res. Oil & Gas Co., 440 F.3d 1186, 1192
(10th Cir. 2006). However, “if the court relies on new materials or new arguments in a reply
brief, it may not forbid the nonmovant from responding to these new materials.” Id. (citation
omitted). “[I]f the district court does preclude a surreply, then the court can avoid error only by
not relying on the new materials and arguments in the movant's reply brief.” Id.
To the extent Defendant provides new materials or makes new arguments in his reply (Doc. No.
208), the court will not consider the materials or arguments. Thus, there is no need to allow the
filing of a surreply. Accordingly, “Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Newly Raised
Objection(s) and Issues Hidden Within Defendant’s Reply Brief in Support of Motion for
Summary Judgment” (Doc. No. 212) is STRICKEN.
Dated: April 27, 2015