Dixon v. Ford Motor Company et al
ORDER STRIKING Plaintiff's Unauthorized 60 Sur-Reply filed by Euniece LaShawn Dixon--Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (MWil)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
EUNIECE LaSHAWN DIXON,
Case No. 5:16-cv-14124
District Judge Judith E. Levy
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti
FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S UNAUTHORIZED SUR-REPLY BRIEF
Plaintiff filed a “Response to Defendant Ford Motor’s [sic] Reply in Support
of Motion to Compel Discovery,” i.e., a sur-reply. (DE 60.) The sur-reply is
rejected by the Court for several reasons: (1) E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(d)(1), which
concerns briefs required and permitted, does not permit the filing of a sur-reply; (2)
Plaintiff did not seek permission to file a sur-reply, but, in any case, I would have
denied such a request, as the Court has an adequate record and the matter is already
under advisement; and (3) my practice guidelines, which are publicly available on
the Court’s website, provide, in part: “Additional briefing, including sur-replies,
will NOT be permitted unless requested by the Court. The Court will strike any
improperly filed sur-replies or other briefing not contemplated by the Local
In accordance with this ruling, the Clerk of the Court SHALL strike
Plaintiff’s June 28, 2018 filing (DE 60).
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 29, 2018
s/Anthony P. Patti
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on June 29, 2018, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti
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?