Dixon v. Ford Motor Company et al

Filing 62

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
SOUTHERN DIVISION
EUNIECE LaSHAWN DIXON,
Plaintiff
v.

Case No. 5:16-cv-14124
District Judge Judith E. Levy
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S UNAUTHORIZED SUR-REPLY BRIEF
(DE 60)
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
Rules.”

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.
s/Michael Williams
Case Manager for the
Honorable Anthony P. Patti

2