Veljanoski v. Juno Therapeutics, Inc. et al

Filing 73

ORDER denying plaintiff's 70 Motion for leave to file response by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7

Case No. C16-1069 RSM

8
9

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
RESPONSE

In re JUNO THERAPEUTICS, INC.

10
11
12

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Response to

13

Defendants’ Notice of Supplemental Authority. Dkt. #70. The Court agrees with Defendants

14

that their Notice of Supplemental Authority (Dkt. #68), complied with Local Rule 7(n) by not

15

containing argument, and that therefore “there is nothing to which Plaintiffs need to respond.”

16

Dkt. #71 at 2. Any responsive argument would constitute an improper surreply. The Court

17
18
19
20
21

further finds that it need not adjust the noting date of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and that it
can request supplemental briefing from the parties, if necessary, at a future date.
Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby
finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Response to Defendants’ Notice of

22
23
24
25
26
27

Supplemental Authority (Dkt. #70) is DENIED.
DATED this 18th day of May 2017.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE - 1