R&O Construction Company v. New Creation Masonry, Inc. et al

Filing 117

ORDER Granting 111 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply to 78 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Arizona Stone & Architectural Products NV, LLC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file a brief sur-reply of not more than 10 pages, within 15 days of entry of this order. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 11/15/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

9
R&O CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
13

ROX PRO INTERNATIONAL GROUP,
LTD.; et al.,

14

Defendants.

2:09-cv-01749-LRH-LRL
ORDER

15
16

Before the court is plaintiff R&O Construction Company’s (“R&O”) motion for leave to

17

file a sur-reply to defendant Arizona Stone & Architectural Products NV, LLC’s (“Arizona”)

18

motion for summary judgment (Doc. #781). Doc. #111. Arizona filed an opposition to the motion.

19

Doc. #112.

20

I.

Facts and Background

21

This is a construction defect action. On September 3, 2009, R&O filed a complaint against

22

defendants for various causes of action. Doc. #1. In response, Arizona filed a motion for summary

23

judgment. Doc. #78. R&O filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Doc. #93.

24

After R&O’s opposition was filed, the magistrate judge excluded certain expert reports that

25
26

1

Refers to the court’s docket number.

1

were used to support Arizona’s motion for summary judgment. Doc. #110. Thereafter, R&O filed

2

the present motion for leave to file a sur-reply to Arizona’s motion in light of the magistrate judge’s

3

order. Doc. #111.

4

II.

5

Discussion
A court has the inherent authority to grant leave to a party to file a sur-reply when the

6

information in that sur-reply would be germane to the evaluation of a pending matter. See Cedars-

7

Sinai Medical Center v. Shalala, 177 F.3d 1126, 1129 (9th Cir. 1999). Here, the court has reviewed

8

the documents and pleadings on file in this matter and finds that a sur-reply, in light of the recent

9

evidentiary exclusions outlined in the magistrate judge’s order (Doc. #110), would be germane to

10

the court’s evaluation of Arizona’s pending motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the court

11

shall grant R&O’s motion.

12
13
14

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply
(Doc. #111) is GRANTED.

15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file a brief sur-reply to defendant’s motion

16

for summary judgment (Doc. #78) of not more than ten (10) pages, within fifteen (15) days of entry

17

of this order.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

DATED this 15th day of November, 2011.

20

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26

2