Castro et al v. Poulton et al

Filing 87

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 79 Defendants' Motion to Strike Reply isgranted. The Clerk of Court shall strike 64 Plaintiffs Reply to her Motion to Strike defenseexpert Jack Broadhurst.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 80 Defendants' Mo tion to Strike Replies isgranted. The Clerk of Court shall strike 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 Plaintiffs Replies to her Motions in Limine. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 5/3/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
CRAIG STUART POULTON, individually and as
the employee of USF REDDAWAY, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
AZUCENA CASTRO, CLAUDIA E. CASTRO,
JOSE SILVESTRE CASTRO,

Case No. 2:15-cv-01908-JCM-GWF
ORDER

13
14

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Strike Reply (ECF No. 79) and

15

Motion to Strike Replies (ECF No. 80), filed on April 18, 2017. Plaintiff filed her Non-Oppositions

16

(ECF Nos. 84, 85) on May 2, 2017.

17

On March 6, 2017 Plaintiff filed her Motion to Strike defense expert Jack Broadhurst under

18

Daubert (ECF No. 51) and her errata (ECF No. 52) to her Motion to Strike. On March 20, 2017,

19

Defendants filed their Response. ECF No. 58. On March 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed her Reply. ECF No.

20

64. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike under Daubert is considered a Motion in Limine. On March 20, 2017,

21

Plaintiff filed her Motions in Limine #1 and #2 (ECF Nos. 59, 60). On April 3, 2017, Defendants filed

22

their Responses. ECF Nos. 68, 69. On April 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed her Replies. ECF Nos. 73, 75.

23

On March 31, 2017, Plaintiff filed her Motions in Limine #3, #4, and #5. ECF Nos. 61, 62, 63. On

24

April 4, 2017, Defendants filed their Responses. ECF Nos. 70, 71, 72. On April 10, 2017, Plaintiff

25

filed her Replies. ECF Nos. 74, 75, 77.

26

Defendants request that the Court strike Plaintiff’s Reply to her Motion to Strike (ECF No. 64)

27

and Replies to her Motions in Limine (ECF Nos. 73, 74, 75, 76, 77) pursuant to Local Rule (“LR”) 16-

28

3(b). In the alternative, Defendants request leave to file sur-replies. Plaintiff requests that the Court

1

consider her reply briefs and opposes Defendants’ request for leave to file sur-replies unless new

2

arguments are raised in the reply briefs. Local Rule 16-3(b) states that replies to motions in limine

3

“will be allowed only with leave of the court.” Plaintiff did not obtain leave of court to file her reply

4

briefs. Accordingly,

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike Reply (ECF No. 79) is

6

granted. The Clerk of Court shall strike Plaintiffs Reply (ECF No. 64) to her Motion to Strike defense

7

expert Jack Broadhurst.

8
9
10
11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike Replies (ECF No. 80) is
granted. The Clerk of Court shall strike Plaintiffs Replies (ECF Nos. 73, 74, 75, 76, 77) to her
Motions in Limine.
DATED this 3rd day of May, 2017.

12
13
14

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2