Cohen et al v. Hansen et al

Filing 306

ORDER that 302 Motion to Strike Defendants' Belated Reply is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 1/29/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

BRADLEY STEPHEN COHEN, et al.,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 2:12-cv-01401-JCM-PAL

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

v.

(Mot. Strike – Dkt. #302)

ROSS B. HANSEN, et al.,
Defendants.

12

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Bradley Stephen Cohen and Cohen Asset

13

Management, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Reply (Dkt. #302), filed December 29, 2015.

14

This proceeding is referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB

15

1-3 and 1-9 of the Local Rules of Practice. The Court has considered the Motion.

16

On December 8, 2015, Defendants Steven Earl Firebaugh, Ross B. Hansen, Northwest

17

Territorial Mint, LLC filed a Motion to Instruct the Jury to Infer or Presume that Cohen’s

18

Financial Records Contain Evidence Adverse to His Claim (Dkt. #289). Plaintiffs filed their

19

Opposition (Dkt. #293) on December 14, 2015. According to the Court’s docket, Defendants’

20

reply brief was due by December 24, 2015. See Pls.’ Response (Dkt. #293). Defendants filed

21

their Reply (Dkt. #301) on December 29, 2015. Because Defendants’ Reply was filed five days

22

late, Plaintiffs argue that the Court should strike the filing.

23

Public policy strongly favors deciding disputes on the merits.

See, e.g., In re

24

Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1248 (9th Cir. 2006)

25

(citing Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181 (1962)) (stating it is “entirely contrary to the spirit of

26

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for decisions on the merits to be avoided” because of “mere

27

technicalities”)). Defendants’ reply deadline fell on Christmas Eve. Plaintiffs do not argue they

28

were somehow prejudiced by the five-day delay or that the Reply presented new arguments that
1

1

Defendants did not brief in the underlying motion. The reply is short. The issue raised in the

2

motion involves jury instructions that are not typically settled until after the close of evidence.

3

Accordingly,

4

IT IS ORDERED:

5

1. Plaintiffs Bradley Stephen Cohen and Cohen Asset Management, Inc.’s Motion to

6
7

Strike Defendants’ Belated Reply (Dkt. #302) is DENIED.
Dated this 29th day of January, 2016.

8
9

PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2