RICCI et al v. BEECH GROVE CITY SCHOOLS et al

Filing 50

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO FILE SURREPLY - Plaintiffs filed their Motion to File Surreply Brief on the basis that they feel they need to address some specific points. However, this is not a proper basis to allow a summary judgment surrepl y. No new evidence or objections are raised. Plaintiffs' almost ninety-five pages of briefing adequately addresses the issues in this matter. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion to File Surreply Brief (Filing No. 48). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/24/2016. (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
RICCI and KAREN C.,
Parents and next of friends of L.C.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BEECH GROVE CITY SCHOOLS,
SOUTHSIDE SPECIAL SERVICES OF
MARION COUNTY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:14-cv-00576-TWP-DML

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO FILE SURREPLY
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Surreply Brief (Filing No. 48).
At the conclusion of the July 17, 2014 telephonic conference, the Magistrate Judge asked the
parties to submit a proposed order regarding the briefing schedule and page limit requirements for
the cross-motions for summary judgment the parties anticipated filing. The parties discussed the
briefing schedule and page limits and jointly filed an agreed proposal (Filing No. 21).
The parties agreed that Plaintiffs would file a motion for summary judgment and brief in
support of the motion, and then the Defendants would respond to the Plaintiffs’ motion and file
their own cross-motion for summary judgment. The parties further agreed that the Plaintiffs would
then file a consolidated Response Brief to Defendants’ cross-motion and Reply Brief in support of
their own motion. This would be followed by the Defendants’ Reply Brief. The parties’ joint
briefing schedule also included page limits for the parties’ briefs, giving Plaintiffs 95 pages and
Defendants 85 pages. The Court ordered briefing according to the parties’ agreement (Filing No.
22).

The “purpose for having a motion, response and reply is to give the movant the final
opportunity to be heard and to rebut the non-movant’s response, thereby persuading the court that
the movant is entitled to the relief requested by the motion.” Lady Di’s, Inc. v. Enhanced Servs.
Billing, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29463, at *4 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 25, 2010). Local Rule 56-1(d)
allows a summary judgment surreply only in limited circumstances—if the movant cites new
evidence in the reply or objects to the admissibility of the evidence cited in the response. Where a
surreply is permitted, it must be limited to the new evidence and objections.
Plaintiffs filed their Motion to File Surreply Brief on the basis that they feel they need to
address some specific points. However, this is not a proper basis to allow a summary judgment
surreply. No new evidence or objections are raised. Plaintiffs’ almost ninety-five pages of briefing
adequately addresses the issues in this matter. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to
File Surreply Brief (Filing No. 48).
SO ORDERED.

Date: 3/24/2016

Distribution:
Alexander Phillip Pinegar
CHURCH CHURCH HITTLE & ANTRIM
[e-mail]

Alexandra Marie Curlin
CURLIN & CLAY LAW
[e-mail]

Amy Ann Matthews
CHURCH CHURCH HITTLE & ANTRIM
[e-mail]

Robin C. Clay
CURLIN & CLAY LAW
[e-mail]

2