Abraham v. Leigh et al

Filing 492

ORDER: Plaintiff's application is DENIED. Plaintiff's March 11, 2020 submissions in opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment do not make reference to any documents that Plaintiff had intended to file but was unable to do so d ue to file size limitations. Indeed, these March 11, 2020 submissions make reference only to the opposition brief, Rule 56.1 counterstatement, and Exhibits A through J. The Court is forced to conclude that Plaintiff is seeking to file a sur-reply in opposition to Defendants' reply papers. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she is entitled to such do so. Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file on the public docket as her submissions in opposition to the pending motion for summary j udgment only those documents that she emailed to the Court and Leigh Defendants on March 11, 2020. The Court will review these filings to ensure that they do not differ in any respect from those received on March 11, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 3/27/2020) (rro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ROBYN ABRAHAM,
Plaintiff,
-v.-

17 Civ. 5429 (KPF)
ORDER

ABBY LEIGH, et al.,
Defendants.
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge:

Plaintiff was required to file her papers opposing the Leigh Defendants’
pending motion for summary judgment on or before March 11, 2020. (Dkt.
#446). On March 11, 2020, Plaintiff emailed to the Court: (i) a copy of her brief
in opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment; (ii) a copy of her
Rule 56.1 counterstatement; and (iii) exhibits lettered A through J. Plaintiff
informed the Court that she had been unable to file these documents through
the Court’s electronic case filing system. On March 18, 2020, the Court
granted Plaintiff leave to file her papers in opposition to the pending motion for
summary judgment through the Court’s electronic case filing system on or
before March 27, 2020. (Dkt. #470). But Plaintiff was granted leave to file only
those papers that she had emailed to the Court and Leigh Defendants on
March 11, 2020. (Id.). On March 25, 2020, Defendants filed their reply papers
in further support of their pending motion for summary judgment, thus
completing the briefing concerning the pending motion. (Dkt. #474).
On March 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed a letter, requesting that the Court
grant her leave to file certain unspecified documents — including a larger

“opposition to motion for summary judgment” — that Plaintiff had not emailed
to the Court on March 11, 2020. (Dkt. #477). Plaintiff argued that this was
appropriate, because she was unable to email certain documents to the Court
due to the size of the files in question. (Id.). Defendants have opposed
Plaintiff’s request. (Dkt. #478).
Plaintiff’s application is DENIED. Plaintiff’s March 11, 2020 submissions
in opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment do not make
reference to any documents that Plaintiff had intended to file but was unable to
do so due to file size limitations. Indeed, these March 11, 2020 submissions
make reference only to the opposition brief, Rule 56.1 counterstatement, and
Exhibits A through J. The Court is forced to conclude that Plaintiff is seeking
to file a sur-reply in opposition to Defendants’ reply papers. Plaintiff has not
demonstrated that she is entitled to such do so.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file on the public docket as
her submissions in opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment
only those documents that she emailed to the Court and Leigh Defendants on
March 11, 2020. The Court will review these filings to ensure that they do not
differ in any respect from those received on March 11, 2020.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 27, 2020
New York, New York

__________________________________
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
United States District Judge

2