Marion HealthCare, LLC v. Southern Illinois Healthcare et al

Filing 76

ORDER denying 74 Motion to Strike. See order for details. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 12/20/2013. (kbl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MARION HEALTHCARE, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.

No.

3:12-cv-00871-DRH-PMF

SOUTHERN ILLINOIS HEALTHCARE,
and HEALTH CARE SERVICE
CORPORATION, d/b/a BLUECROSS
AND BLUESHIELD OF ILLINOIS,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, Chief Judge:
Pending before the Court is plaintiff Marion HealthCare, LLC’s (“Marion”)
motion to strike defendant Health Care Service Corporation, d/b/a BlueCross and
BlueShield of Illinois’ (“BCBSIL”) reply (Doc. 74). Marion argues that BCBSIL’s
reply brief should be stricken because it both was untimely filed and fails to state
exceptional circumstances as required by Local Rule 7.1(c). In response, BCBSIL
argues that its reply was timely filed and that it sufficiently articulated the
exceptional circumstances that necessitated the reply brief’s filing (Doc. 75). For
the following reasons, the Court DENIES Marion’s motion to strike.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c), reply briefs are to be filed within 14 days of
service of the response as calculated according to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6.
However, as BCBSIL correctly notes, when a party is served via electric means,
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d) affords an extra 3 days to respond. Local Rule
Page 1 of 2

5.1(c) acknowledges this framework, explicitly providing an extra 3 days whenever
a document is filed electronically. Marion filed its response on November 25,
2013 via CM/ECF (Doc. 72). BCBSIL ‘s reply was therefore due on December 12,
2013 before midnight (Central Time). BCBSIL met this deadline, timely filing its
reply on December 12, 2013 at 4:57 PM.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c), “[r]eply briefs are not favored and should be
filed only in exceptional circumstances” (bold in original). BCBSIL argues that
a reply was required because “Plaintiff’s Opposition asserts new allegations and
raises arguments that were not specifically addressed in BCBSIL’s original brief”
(Doc. 73 at 1 n.1; Doc. 75 at 2). Specifically, BCBSIL asserts that it “could not
have anticipated” these additional allegations because they either were not asserted
of were contrary to assertions in the second amended complaint. Finally, BCBSIL
argues that Marion misinterpreted and misconstrued various points of law. The
Court finds BCBSIL’s reasoning sufficient to establish exceptional circumstances.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff Marion HealthCare, LLC’s motion to
strike defendant Health Care Service Corporation, d/b/a BlueCross and BlueShield
of Illinois’ (“BCBSIL”) reply (Doc. 74).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 20th day of December, 2013.

Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2013.12.20
13:08:42 -06'00'

Chief Judge
United States District Court
Page 2 of 2