Hernandez v. Baylor University Board of Regents et al

Filing 91

ORDER GRANTING 75 Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (tb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION JASMIN HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. BAYLOR UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § 6:16-CV-69-RP ORDER Before the Court in the above-entitled action is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File SurReply, (Dkt. 75), and the responsive pleadings thereto. By way of that Motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a sur-reply to the three pending Motions to Dismiss in the instant case. (See Dkts. 32, 56, 61, and 67). Defendants object, arguing that the Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion because the proposed sur-reply “recites factual allegations” from other cases that have “no bearing on the specific arguments in [Defendants’] motion[s] to dismiss” and “asks for permission to file extrinsic evidence.” (Baylor Resp., Dkt. 77, at 1–2; McCaw Resp., Dkt. 79, at 6). Once a motion is filed, the Local Civil Rules permit a response by the nonmovant and a reply by the movant. W.D. Tex. Local Rule CV-7(e)–(f). Absent leave of court, no further submissions on the motion are allowed. W.D. Tex. Local Rule CV-7(f). However, a Court has the discretion to grant leave to file a sur-reply when it finds that the party seeking leave to file has provided adequate justification. See, e.g., Duarte v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., No. EP-l4-CV-305KC, 2015 WL 12910213, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2015); Salomon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., EP– 10–CV–106–KC, 2010 WL 2545593, at *2 (W.D. Tex. June 21, 2010). After reviewing Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File, Defendants’ responses in objection, and Plaintiff’s proposed sur-reply, the Court finds that Plaintiff has provided an adequate justification for 1 granting her Motion and that doing so will cause Defendants no prejudice. The Court can determine when a sur-reply raises irrelevant information or, as alleged by at least one Defendant in the instant case, seeks to introduce extrinsic evidence in violation of the standard governing review of motions to dismiss; the Court will disregard any portions of Plaintiff’s sur-reply that do so. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply, (Dkt. 75), is hereby GRANTED. SIGNED on March 6, 2017. _____________________________________ ROBERT PITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?