Dumas v. Hurley Medical Center et al

Filing 108

ORDER to Strike 106 Sur-Reply filed by Lowana Shanell Dumas, 103 Response to Motion filed by Lowana Shanell Dumas, 107 Sur-Reply filed by Lowana Shanell Dumas and ( Telephone Conference set for 11/16/2011 09:45 AM before District Judge Robert H. Cleland - ALL PARTIES TO PARTICIPATE ) Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

LOWANA SHANELL DUMAS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 10-12661

v.
HURLEY MEDICAL CENTER, et al.,
Defendant.
/

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO HURLEY DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO QUASH, SUR-REPLY, AND SUPPLEMENT TO SUR-REPLY
AND SETTING TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE
Defendants Hurley Medical Center, Dwayne Parker, and Kristen Deloney
(collectively “Hurley Defendants”) filed a motion to quash or modify a subpoena on
November 9, 2011. On November 10, 2011, Plaintiff Lowana Dumas filed a response.
Contained within Plaintiff’s response are three independent motions: (1) a motion to
compel discovery; (2) a motion to add a due process claim against Defendant Hurley
Medical Center; and (3) a “Motion in Limine for Admission of Evidence.” Hurley
Defendants filed a reply on November 11, 2011, and, thereafter, Plaintiff filed, without
leave of the court, a sur-reply and a supplement to the sur-reply. The supplement to the
sur-reply also contained a motion seeking an order directing Hurley Defendants to
“show cause for material misrepresentation.” The court will strike Plaintiff’s response,
sur-reply, and supplement to the sur-reply because the court’s practice guidelines do
not permit motions which are tacked onto responses or replies.1 Further, the local rules

1

See http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/Judges/guidelines/topic.cfm?topic_id=69

permit the filing of motions, responses, and optional replies, but sur-replies are
generally not allowed without leave of court. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Objection and Response to Defendant’s
Improper Motion to Quash . . .” [Dkt. # 103], “Response to Reply . . .” [Dkt. # 106], and
“Supplement to Response to Reply . . .” [Dkt. # 107] are STRICKEN from the court's
docket.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all parties shall participate in a telephonic
conference on November 16, 2011, at 9:45 a.m. The parties should be prepared to
discuss Plaintiff’s motion to extend discovery [Dkt. # 95] and Hurley Defendants’ motion
to quash [Dkt. # 102]. The court will initiate the call.

s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 15, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, November 15, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa G. Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\10-12661.DUMAS.StrikeCombinedResponseMotion.jrc.wpd

2