Alexander et al v. Falk et al

Filing 86

ORDER that Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply, to Continue Hearing on Defendants Motion for Sanctions, and to Allow Plaintiffs Out of State Counsel to Appear by Telephone (ECF No. 83 ) is granted, in part, and denied in part; Plaintiffs' counsel is permitted to appear by telephone for the hearing set for July 19, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 7/17/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

RANDI ALEXANDER, et al.,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 2:16-cv-02268-MMD-GWF
Plaintiffs,

v.

ORDER

KATHRYN FALK, et al.,
Defendants.

12

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply, to

13

Continue Hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions, and to Allow Plaintiff’s Out of State

14

Counsel to Appear by Telephone (ECF No. 83), filed on July 14, 2018. Defendants filed their

15

Response (ECF No. 85) on July 16, 2018.

16

Plaintiffs request leave to file a surreply to Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions. A party is

17

permitted to file a surreply only by leave of court and motions for leave to file a surreply are

18

discouraged. See LR 7-2(b). The Court may grant leave to file a surreply if new matters are

19

raised for the first time in the reply to which a party would otherwise be unable to respond. See

20

United States v. Ormat Indus., Ltd, 2016 WL 1298119, at *6 (D. Nev. Apr. 1, 2016). Plaintiffs

21

do not assert that Defendants raised new matters for the first time in their reply and the Court

22

finds that Defendants did not raise new arguments in their reply. The Court, therefore, denies

23

Plaintiffs’ request for leave to file a surreply.

24

Plaintiffs request a continuance of the hearing set for July 19, 2018 due to a scheduling

25

conflict. The Court set this matter for hearing on June 22, 2018. Plaintiffs fail to set forth the

26

basis for its request other than the assertion that counsel will be out of town and travelling. The

27

Court does not find good cause to reschedule the hearing. The Court will, however, allow

28

Plaintiffs’ counsel to appear by telephone for the hearing set for July 19, 2018. Accordingly,
1

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply, to

2

Continue Hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions, and to Allow Plaintiff’s Out of State

3

Counsel to Appear by Telephone (ECF No. 83) is granted, in part, and denied¸ in part.

4
5
6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ counsel is permitted to appear by telephone
for the hearing set for July 19, 2018.
DATED this 17th day of July, 2018.

7
8
9

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

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