Grimmett v. Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. et al

Filing 27

ORDER granting 24 Motion for Leave to File a Sur-reply. Signed by District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KATHERINE GRIMMETT,
Case No. 2:11-cv-12623
Plaintiff,
Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff
v.
ANTHEM INSURANCE
COMPANIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________/
OPINION AND ORDER
AT A SESSION of said Court, held in the United States Courthouse,
in the City of Port Huron, State of Michigan, on June 28, 2012
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Leave to file a Sur-reply to Plaintiff’s
Newly-Raised Reply Arguments [dkt 24]. The parties have fully briefed the motion. The Court finds that
the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the parties’ papers such that the decision process
would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Therefore, pursuant to E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(f)(2), it is
hereby ORDERED that the Motion be resolved on the briefs submitted, without oral argument. For the
following reasons, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED.

II. ANALYSIS
Pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order, on January 3, 2012, the parties simultaneously
filed their motions for judgment on the administrative record. The parties’ motions became fully
briefed on February 13, 2012. The parties dispute whether arguments raised in Plaintiff’s reply to
Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s motion for judgment are “new” arguments warranting a sur-reply
from Defendants.

The Court finds that, at the very least, Plaintiff has provided new, purported legal authority,
and argumentation based on such authority. As such, the Court is well within its discretion to allow
Defendant an opportunity to file a sur-reply brief. See Eng’g. & Mfg. Servs., LLC v. Ashton, 387
Fed. App’x. 575, 583 (6th Cir. 2010) (“When new submissions and/or arguments are included in a
reply brief, a nonmovant’s ability to respond to the new evidence has been vitiated . . . .”) (quoting
Seay v Tennessee Valley Auth., 339 F.3d 454, 481-82 (6th Cir. 2003)).

III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that
Defendants’ Motion For Leave to File A Sur-Reply [dkt 24] is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: June 28, 2012
s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff
LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

2