INDIANAPOLIS AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA
ORDER. IAA's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Appendix of Evidence and Surreply in Opposition to Travelers' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 260], is DENIED. (See order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/23/2016. (BGT)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS AIRPORT AUTHORITY ,
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF
Presently pending before the Court, among other motions, is Plaintiff Indianapolis Airport
Authority’s (“IAA”) Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Appendix of Evidence and Surreply
in Opposition to Travelers’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. [Filing No. 260.] In its motion,
IAA argues that it is entitled to file a Surreply under Local Rule 56-1(d) because Defendant Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Travelers”) “filed eleven new exhibits and presented new arguments based on these exhibits,” “[m]any of these arguments are not supported by
the evidence,” and “IAA should have the opportunity to correct these errors, which may mislead
the Court on issues related to the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment.” [Filing No. 260
at 1-2.] IAA also contends that Travelers challenges the admissibility of certain testimony from
Richard Potosnak which IAA relies upon in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. [Filing
No. 260 at 2.] IAA “seeks leave to submit a short, nine page surreply,” and “a Supplemental
Appendix of Evidence…to rebut evidence and arguments submitted by Travelers in its Reply.”
[Filing No. 260 at 2.]
Local Rule 56-1(d) provides:
A party opposing a summary judgment motion may file a surreply brief only if the
movant cites new evidence in the reply or objects to the admissibility of the evidence cited in the response. The surreply must be filed within 7 days after the
movant serves the reply and must be limited to the new evidence and objections.
IAA attaches a copy of the surreply it seeks to file to its motion, [Filing No. 260-1], and the Court’s
review of the surreply indicates that it goes well beyond the confines of Local Rule 56-1(d).
First, IAA discusses Travelers’ “Reply To IAA’s Response To Travelers’ Facts” by addressing Travelers’ reply to nine statements of fact. [Filing No. 260-1 at 1-4.] Many of these
statements by Travelers, however, do not involve “new evidence” cited by Travelers, but rather
cite to exhibits already discussed in IAA’s and Travelers’ opening briefs. [See, e.g., Filing No.
255 at 7-8 (Travelers’ Reply regarding Statement of Fact 40 (which cites to excerpts from the
deposition of Richard Potosnak that Travelers filed with its initial brief) and Travelers’ Reply to
Statement of Fact 45 (which also cites to earlier-filed excerpts from the Potosnak deposition)).]
Second, IAA asserts that the opinion of Travelers’ expert, David Schlader, is inadmissible,
[Filing No. 260-1 at 7-8], but Mr. Schlader’s testimony is not new evidence. In fact, IAA already
addressed that testimony in its Response/Reply brief. [See, e.g., Filing No. 246 at 18-19; Filing
No. 246 at 32; Filing No. 246 at 44.] Local Rule 56-1(d) does not allow the filing of a surreply to
contest the admissibility of evidence already discussed by the same party in an earlier brief.
Third, IAA includes three sections in its surreply that have nothing to do with new evidence
or an admissibility issue – a discussion of the Crete-Monee case, a discussion of the policy’s appraisal provision, and a discussion of the policy’s delay exclusion. Even if these issues were raised
for the first time by Travelers in its Reply brief, nothing in Local Rule 56-1(d) allows for a surreply
when the issues do not involve new evidence or challenges to the admissibility of evidence.
In short, while IAA may properly address one issue for which a surreply is allowed, [see
Filing No. 260-1 at 4-7 (responding to Travelers’ argument that portions of Mr. Potosnak’s testimony are inadmissible)], the majority of IAA’s surreply appears to simply be an attempt to get the
last word. IAA could have submitted a proposed surreply focused only on the issue of the admissibility of Mr. Potosnak’s testimony, but it chose not to do so and instead to include other arguments that are clearly not permitted under Local Rule 56-1(d). IAA overreached, and the Court
will not condone such practice.
Accordingly, the Court will not consider IAA’s surreply, particularly when the parties have
already submitted very extensive briefs in support of their cross motions for summary judgment.
Additionally, the Court notes that the parties have filed 91 pages in briefs and exhibits just on the
issue of whether IAA should be permitted to file a surreply. [See Filing No. 260 and exhibits;
Filing No. 270 and exhibit; Filing No. 275.] At some point enough is enough, and that point is
IAA’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Appendix of Evidence and Surreply in Opposition to Travelers’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 260], is DENIED.
Date: March 23, 2016
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution via ECF only to all counsel of record
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?