Cowden v. BNSF Railway Company

Filing 286

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (see order for details) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Kevin Cowden's Motion to Strike Reply Exhibits and Alternative Motion for Leave to File Surreply [ECF No. 284 ] is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. The Co urt will not strike the exhibits from Defendant's Reply, but the Court accepts Plaintiffs proffered Surreply, which the Court will consider in adjudicating the pending Motion for an Order Showing Satisfaction of Judgment [ECF No. 271 ]. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 04/29/2014. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
KEVIN COWDEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:08CV01534 ERW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Kevin Cowden’s Motion to Strike Reply
Exhibits and Alternative Motion for Leave to File Surreply [ECF No. 284].
On February 27, 2014, Defendant BNSF Railway Company filed a Motion for an Order
Showing Satisfaction of Judgment [ECF No. 271]. After Plaintiff filed his Memorandum in
Opposition [ECF No. 278], Defendant filed a Reply [ECF No. 283], and attached two exhibits:
(1) an amicus curiae brief submitted by the United States in a case before the Missouri Court of
Appeals, Eastern District, and (2) the declaration of Donald Lee, Defendant’s Manager of Payroll
Taxes.
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, asking the Court to strike the exhibits filed with
Defendant’s Reply, because Local Rule 7-4.01(A) states, “If [a] motion requires consideration of
facts not appearing in the record, the party . . . shall file all documentary evidence relied upon.”
Alternatively, Plaintiff asks the Court leave to file his Surreply in Opposition to BNSF’s Motion
for an Order Showing Satisfaction of Judgment [ECF No. 284-1]. Defendant does not object to
this latter option.

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Kevin Cowden’s Motion to Strike Reply
Exhibits and Alternative Motion for Leave to File Surreply [ECF No. 284] is GRANTED, in
part, and DENIED, in part. The Court will not strike the exhibits from Defendant’s Reply, but
the Court accepts Plaintiff’s proffered Surreply, which the Court will consider in adjudicating the
pending Motion for an Order Showing Satisfaction of Judgment [ECF No. 271].
Dated this 29th Day of April, 2014.

E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-