Young et al v. Regence BlueShield et al

Filing 117

ORDER Granting 113 Dft Regence's Motion to File a Sur-Reply re Motion for Reconsideration by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(CL)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 This matter comes before the Court on Regence's motion to file a sur-reply in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. Regence seeks an opportunity to respond to new arguments plaintiffs made in their reply in support of their motion for reconsideration. Regence's response to those arguments could clarify the issues and assist the Court. Moreover, although there has been an unusual number of filings related to the motion for reconsideration, the motion is directed towards an important, and dispositive, issue. Accordingly, the motion to file a sur-reply (Dkt. #113) is GRANTED. Regence must file its sur-reply by September 3, 2009. The Clerk of the Court is directed to renote the motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #103) on the Court's calendar for September 4, 2009.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE A SUR-REPLY - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE KIMBERLY YOUNG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. REGENCE BLUESHIELD, et al., Defendants. Case No. C07-2008RSL ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE A SUR-REPLY REGARDING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

No further briefing on the motion for reconsideration will be considered.

DATED this 31st day of August, 2009.

A Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE A SUR-REPLY - 2