Jackson v. Triumph Aerostructures, LLC

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DENIES Plaintiff's 35 Motion to Strike Appendix in Support of Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's 18 Motion for Summary Judgment, but GRANTS Defendant's 37 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Appendix in Support of its 18 Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply Brief. The Court directs the clerk to enter Defendant's 34 Supplemental Appendix as of the date of this Order. And the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file a sur-reply no later than 9/27/2016. (Ordered by Judge Jane J Boyle on 9/12/2016) (twd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
BOBBY JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRIUMPH AEROSTRUCTURES, LLC
a/k/a TRIUMPH VOUGHT AIRCRAFT
DIVISION and/or THE ENTITY THAT
EMPLOYED PLAINTIFF AS OF
FEBRUARY 20, 2014,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-0535-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff Bobby Jackson’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s
Supplemental Appendix of Exhibits in Support of Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 35); and (2) Defendant Triumph Aerostructures,
LLC’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Appendix in Support of its Motion for Summary
Judgment and Reply Brief (Doc. 37). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion
but GRANTS Defendant’s.
I.
BACKGROUND
This dispute arises out of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment but turns on a single
procedural question: What evidence, if any, can a moving party include in its reply brief?
The basic facts are routine. Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment with a brief
and appendix in support. Doc. 18, Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J.; Doc. 19, Def.’s Br. in Supp. of Mot. for
-1-

Summ. J.; Doc. 20, Def.’s App. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. Plaintiff, in turn, filed his Response,
also supported with a brief and appendix. Doc. 30, Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Mot for Summ. J. [hereinafter
Pl.’s Resp.]; Doc. 31, Pl.’s Br. in Supp. of Pl.’s Resp.; Doc. 32, Pl.’s App. in Supp. of Pl.’s Resp.
Then Defendant filed its Reply. Doc. 33, Def.’s Reply to Pl.’s Resp. [hereinafter Def.’s Reply].
But somewhat irregularly, it too came with an appendix. Doc. 34, Def.’s App. in Supp. of Def.’s
Reply. That appendix is the Court’s focus here.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
The Northern District of Texas local rules on summary judgment do not permit a party to
submit additional evidence with a reply brief as of right. Dethrow v. Parkland Health Hosp. Sys., 204
F.R.D. 102, 103 (N.D. Tex. 2001); see N.D. Tex. Civ. R. 56.5(c), 56.7. For that reason, a summary
judgment movant “may not file a reply brief appendix without first obtaining leave of court.”
Dethrow, 204 F.R.D. at 104. And leave of court is available only under limited circumstances
“[b]ecause the purpose of a reply brief is to rebut the nonmovant’s response, not to introduce new
evidence.” Id. The Court’s charge, then, is to determine whether this is one of those limited
circumstances. See id.
III.
ANALYSIS
A. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike
The Court first addresses Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike. This analysis is straightforward.
Defendant “filed a reply appendix without first obtaining leave of court.” Id.; see also Doc. 34,
Def.’s App. in Supp. of Def.’s Reply. Thus, the Court ought to strike Defendant’s appendix. See
-2-

Dethrow, 204 F.R.D. at 104. And it generally would. Yet as seen below, that result here would
serve only to impose an unnecessary filing burden on Defendant and the Court. So as a practical
matter, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike.
B. Defendant’s Motion for Leave
The Court now turns to Defendant’s Motion for Leave. Defendant argues that the Court
should grant it leave to file a supplemental appendix to rebut new allegations Plaintiff raised in
his Response. Doc. 37, Def.’s Mot. for Leave 1–2. In particular, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff
alleges for the first time in his Response that Defendant’s human-resources representative relied
on information from another of Defendant’s employees—Plaintiff’s supervisor, who is the subject
of some controversy in this case—about Plaintiff’s work performance during the investigation
that led to Plaintiff being fired. Id. This flows into Plaintiff’s overall narrative that Plaintiff’s
supervisor was looking for an excuse to get Plaintiff fired. See Doc. 30., Pl.’s Resp. ¶¶ 6–16.
Plaintiff supports his claim with, among other things, the human-resources representative’s
deposition transcript. Doc. 31, Pl.’s Br. in Supp. of Pl.’s Resp. 4–5, 12; Doc. 32, Pl.’s App. in
Supp. of Pl’.s Resp. 96–151, Dep. of Christopher Leon Jackson.
Defendant claims that Plaintiff’s Response mischaracterizes its human-resources
representative’s testimony. Doc. 37, Def.’s Mot. for Leave 3. For that reason, Defendant seeks
leave to include three pages from the human-resources representative’s deposition showing that
while Plaintiff’s supervisor provided the human-resources representative with information, he was
not the source of that information. Id. at 2–3. Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that the
issue is old hat; Defendant just made a strategic error in not including the deposition transcript
earlier. Doc. 38, Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Mot. for Leave 2–4. And that, he argues, does not merit
-3-

leave. Id.
“Normally, the Court would not consider new evidence presented with a reply.” Woods v.
Peters, No. 4:05-cv-724-Y, 2007 WL 2729905, at *6 n.4 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2007). But this is
one of those limited circumstances where leave of court is appropriate. Despite his contention
otherwise, a review of the pleadings shows that Plaintiff did not raise the issue of Defendant’s
human-resources representative’s source of information before his Response.
Plaintiff specifically references the human-resources representative’s deposition to support
his argument that the representative relied on information from Plaintiff’s supervisor. Doc. 31,
Pl.’s Br. in Supp. of Pl.’s Resp. 4–5, 12; see also Woods, 2007 WL 2729905, at *6 n.4. So
Defendant may submit the full context of the human-resources representative’s statement to
show that Plaintiff’s supervisor was a vehicle for that information but not its source. See Woods,
2007 WL 2729905, at *6 n.4. To that end, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Leave.
The Court notes that this is an infrequent result. On that basis, and to avert any potential
prejudice, the Court further GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file a sur-reply. See Hijeck v. Menlo
Logistics, Inc., No. 3:07-cv-0530-G, 2008 WL 465274, at *5 n.3 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2008).
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Appendix in
Support of Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 35) but GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental
Appendix in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply Brief (Doc. 37). The Court
directs the clerk to enter Defendant’s Supplemental Appendix (Doc. 34) as of the date of this
-4-

Order. And the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file a sur-reply no later than September 27,
2016.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED: September 12, 2016.

_________________________________
JANE J. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-5-