Ronaldo Designer Jewelry, Inc. v. Cox et al
ORDER finding as moot 301 Motion to Strike. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 1/9/20. (jla)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
RONALDO DESIGNER JEWELRY, INC.
JAMES B. COX and CATHERINE A. COX
d/b/a JC DESIGNS d/b/a WIRE N RINGS
and JOHN DOE a/k/a LEROY and JOHN
DOES Numbers 1 through 99
On February 27, 2019, Ronaldo Designer Jewelry, Inc., filed a motion “to strike a new
argument … in Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff’s Response and Objeciton [sic] to Defendants’
Motion to Exclude Testiomny [sic] of Experts ….” Doc. #301. Ronaldo contends that the
relevant argument—that certain experts cannot testify because their reports have been designated
as confidential—should be stricken because it was raised for the first time in the reply. Id. at 2.
In the alternative, Ronaldo asks that it be granted leave to file a sur-reply addressing the new
argument. Id. at 3. The defendants did not respond to the motion to strike.
“[A] court generally will not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.”
Canal Ins. Co. v. XMEX Transp., LLC, 48 F. Supp. 3d 958, 970 (W.D. Tex. 2014). Consistent
with this rule, the Court will not consider the confidentiality argument challenged by Ronaldo.
Accordingly, the motion to strike or file a sur-reply  is DENIED as moot. See Smith v. U.S.
Customs & Border Protection, 741 F.3d 1016, 1020 n.2 (9th Cir. 2014) (denying as moot motion
to strike new argument when argument not considered).
SO ORDERED, this 9th day of January, 2020.
/s/Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?