Canfield v. Statoil USA Onshore Properties INC et al

Filing 66

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 56 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply to Defendant's Reply Memorandum filed by Cheryl B. Canfield. Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 12/27/16. (bs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHERYL B. CANFIELD,

:
:

Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-0085
:

v.
:
STATOIL USA ONSHORE
PROPERTIES INC., STATOIL
NATURAL GAS LLC, and
STATOIL ASA
Defendants

(JUDGE MANNION)

:
:
:

MEMORANDUM
Currently before the court is the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a surreply, with the plaintiff’s proposed sur-reply attached as an exhibit. (Doc. 56).
The plaintiff’s motion was filed in response to the reply brief filed by
defendants Statoil USA Onshore Properties Inc. (“Statoil USA”) and Statoil
ASA on September 30, 2016. (Doc. 46). The parties’ extensive briefing stems
from the motion to dismiss filed Statoil USA and Statoil ASA on June 9, 2016.
(Doc. 31). For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s motion is denied and the
plaintiff’s proposed sur-reply is stricken from the record.
The plaintiff’s proposed sur-reply disregards several local rules and her
motion fails to provide any justification for these violations. Local Rule 7.1
requires a party to certify that he or she has sought concurrence from each
party to the case when filing a motion and to indicate whether concurrence
has been given or denied. The plaintiff did not seek concurrence in filing her
motion. In addition, the proposed sur-reply exceeds the font and word limits
provided by Local Rules 5.1 and 7.8. Lastly, as indicated by Local Rule 7.7,

the typical time provided to respond to a brief is fourteen (14) days after
service. The plaintiff’s motion requesting leave, which is required by Local
Rule 7.7 at this stage, was filed on November 23, 2016, 54 days after the
defendants’ service of their reply brief. The plaintiff’s motion provides no
justification for her failure to seek concurrence, nor is there any indication of
a need to exceed the normal typographical limits imposed on briefs. There is
also a clear delay in her request. For these reasons, the plaintiff’s motion for
leave is denied.
Further, the court has glanced at the plaintiff’s proposed sur-reply and
finds that it is merely an attempt to rehash arguments, presenting nothing new
to aid in the court’s determination of the underlying motion to dismiss. Instead,
the plaintiff’s primary reason for seeking leave to file a sur-reply is to further
develop or recharacterize the cases cited in the defendants’ reply. The court
is able to read these cases and determine their merit as applied to the facts
here without further explanation. In addition, contrary to the plaintiff’s
suggestion, the defendants’ introduction of new authorities in their reply does
not provide a good reason for granting leave to the plaintiff. Again, the court
is able to read these new cases and determine their applicability
appropriately. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s proposed sur-reply is stricken.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
Dated: December 27, 2016
O:\Mannion\shared\MEMORANDA - DJ\CIVIL MEMORANDA\2016 MEMORANDA\16-0085-01.wpd

2