Owens v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al

Filing 381

ORDER denying #379 MOTION to Strike #377 Reply to Response to Motion, #380 MOTION for Leave to File Instanter Reply in Support of Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Aggregation Order and Request to Stay Nunc Pro Tunc; granting #380 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 11/21/2022. (cw)

Case: 2:20-cv-03785-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 381 Filed: 11/21/22 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 9023

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

In re FIRSTENERGY CORP
SECURITIES LITIGATION
This document relates to:
ALL ACTIONS.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 2:20-cv-3785
Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Class Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Instanter Reply
in Support of Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Aggregation Order and Request to Stay Nunc
Pro Tunc (ECF No. 380). The Magistrate Judge’s October 18, 2022 Order (ECF No. 355) resolves
a dispute between the parties regarding coordination of fact depositions between the instant case
and the Direct Action cases.
Class Plaintiffs’ Objection (ECF No. 360) to the October 18, 2022 Order was met with
responses in opposition from Defendants (ECF No. 374) and Direct-Action Plaintiffs (ECF No.
375-1). Class Plaintiffs then, without first seeking leave of court, filed their reply to the opposition
memoranda. (ECF No. 377). But as Defendants correctly noted in their Motion to Strike Class
Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum (ECF No. 379), Class Plaintiffs were required to seek leave from
this Court to file their reply brief. See Eastern Division Order 22-01 (Feb. 1, 2022). Class Plaintiffs
do not dispute that they failed to do so. This Court, however, credits Class Plaintiffs’
acknowledgment of their procedural error (ECF No. 380 at 1) and their attempt to rectify the same
via their Motion for Leave.

Case: 2:20-cv-03785-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 381 Filed: 11/21/22 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 9024

Class Action Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 380) is thus GRANTED, and Defendants’
Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum (ECF No. 379) is DENIED. This Court will
consider Class Action Plaintiffs’ earlier-filed reply brief (ECF No. 377).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___
_________
_______________
__
____
_ ___________
_ __________
_____________________________________
ALGENON
A GENO
AL
ON L.
L MARBL
MARBLEY
LEY
EY
CHIEF UN
UNITED
JUDGE
NITED STATES DISTRICT JUD
Dated: November 21, 2022

2