Rich Media Club et al v. Mentchoukov et al

Filing 200

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER granting 198 Motion for Leave to File One-Page Sur-Reply. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells on 07/26/2012. (tls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
RICH MEDIA CLUB, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, and RICH MEDIA
WORLDWIDE, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company,

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER
GRANTING MOTION TO FILE ONE-PAGE
SUR-REPLY
Case No. 2:11-cv-1202

Plaintiffs,
v.

District Judge Ted Stewart

NIKOLAI MENTCHOUKOV, JAMES W.
ROWAN, and LEFTSNRIGHTS, INC., a
Delaware corporation, dba LIQWID, and
JOHN DOES 1–25,

Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells

Defendants.
Before the Court is Defendants Motion to File a One-Page Sur-Reply. 1 Defendants
represent that the “Plaintiffs Combined Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss
(Doc No. 187) contains a material misrepresentation of Defendants’ position.” 2 Therefore, “[i]n
an effort to clarify the record and avoid mistake, Defendants hereby request permission pursuant
to D.U.Civ. R. 7(b)(3) to file a one-page sur-reply which addresses Plaintiffs’ mistaken
statement.” 3
On the same day Defendants filed their motion Plaintiffs filed an opposition. 4 Plaintiffs
argue they do not materially misrepresent Defendants’ position and courts usually limit sur-

1

Docket no. 198.

2

Mtn p. 2 (quotations omitted).

3

Id.

4

Docket no. 199.

replies to rare circumstances, such as “’where a movant improperly raises new arguments in a
reply.’” 5
Local Rule 7(b)(3) permits the filing of a sur-reply with leave of Court. Here the surreply is only one page and may be of assistance in helping clarify the issues before the Court.
Further, the case Plaintiffs cite to involved the rules from the District of Kansas that “do not
provide for the filing of surreplies.” 6 Those rules are different from the District of Utah’s local
rules. 7 The Court therefore rejects Plaintiffs’ arguments and will allow Defendants to file a onepage sur-reply.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File One-Page SurReply is GRANTED.

DATED this 26 July 2012.

Brooke C. Wells
United States Magistrate Judge

5

McShares, Inc. v. Barry, 979 F.Wupp. 1338, 1341 (D.Kan. 1997) (quoting E.E.O.C. v. International Paper Co.,
1992 WL 370850 (D.Kan. Oct. 28, 1992)).
6

Id.

7

The District of Kansas’ local rules do not state that additional memoranda may be submitted by leave of court.
Rather, courts in Kansas have adopted that approach in practice. In contrast, this district’s local rules explicitly
provide for additional memoranda with leave of court.

2