H. Daya International Co., Ltd. v. DO Denim, LLC et al

Filing 238

DECISION AND ORDER: Because the Court did not expressly authorize the surreply to be filed, the Court respectfully directs the Clerk of Court to strike Dkt. No. 235 from the docket but retain the summary docket text for the record. If the Court determines that a surreply is needed to address arguments that the Siskind Defendants make for the first time in their reply brief, the Court will direct H. Daya to submit its surreply at that time. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 8/19/2021) (js)

Case 1:16-cv-08668-VM-DCF Document 238 Filed 08/19/21 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------X
:
H. Daya International Co., Ltd.,
August 19,
:
Plaintiff,
:
16 Civ. 8668 (VM)
:
- against:
DECISION AND ORDER
:
Do Denim LLC, et al.,
:
:
Defendants
:
-----------------------------------X
VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge.

2021

On July 27, 2021, plaintiff H. Daya International Co.
Ltd. (“H. Daya”) filed a letter motion seeking permission
to file Dkt. No. 229 and its attached exhibits after the
deadline.

(See

Dkt.

No.

231.)

H.

Daya

also

sought

permission to file a surreply. (See id.) On July 29, 2021,
the Court granted H. Daya permission to file Dkt. No. 229
and its attachments after the deadline. (See Dkt. No. 232.)
The Court did not explicitly grant H. Daya’s request to
file a surreply, nor did it explicitly deny the request.
On August 13, 2021, H. Daya filed a surreply on the
belief that the Court had granted its request to do so.
(See

Dkt.

Siskind
Group

&
LLC

No.

235.)

Co.,

Inc.

(“Vintage

On

August

(“Siskind

16,
&

Apparel”),

2021,

Co.”),
and

defendants

Vintage
Richard

R.

Apparel
Siskind

(“Siskind”) (collectively, the “Siskind Defendants”) filed
a letter requesting the Court strike the surreply as an
1

Case 1:16-cv-08668-VM-DCF Document 238 Filed 08/19/21 Page 2 of 2

unauthorized filing. (Dkt. No. 236.) H. Daya opposes that
request. (Dkt. No. 237.)
Because

the

Court

did

not

expressly

authorize

the

surreply to be filed, the Court respectfully directs the
Clerk of Court to strike Dkt. No. 235 from the docket but
retain the summary docket text for the record. If the Court
determines that a surreply is needed to address arguments
that

the

Siskind

Defendants

make

for

the

first

time

in

their reply brief, the Court will direct H. Daya to submit
its surreply at that time.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
19 August 2021
_________________________
VICTOR MARRERO
U.S.D.J.

2