Meeker v. Berryhill

Filing 35

ORDER denying 34 Motion for Leave to File Surreply signed by Judge David W. Christel.(SH)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 MARY A. MEEKER, 11 Plaintiff, 13 14 NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Deputy Commissioner of Social Security for Operations, Defendant. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER v. 12 CASE NO. 3:17-CV-05212-DWC Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73 and Local Rule MJR 13, the parties have consented to have this matter heard by the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Dkt. 22. Currently pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File a Surreply (“Motion”). Dkt. 34. In the Motion, Defendant seeks to file a surreply to Plaintiff’s Reply stemming from Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees (Dkt. 29) pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). Pursuant to Local Rule CR 7(g)(2), surreplies are “strictly limited” to requests to strike material contained in or attached to a reply brief. “Extraneous argument or a surreply filed for 24 ORDER - 1 1 any other reason will not be considered.” Id; see also Herrnandez v. Stryker Corp., 2015 WL 2 11714363, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 13, 2015). 3 In the present Motion, Defendant seeks to file a surreply because Defendant feels 4 “compelled” to reply to the substance of Plaintiff’s Reply. Dkt. 34, p. 2. The Court acknowledges 5 Plaintiff’s Reply contains characterizations of Defendant’s alleged actions which could have 6 been expressed more tactfully. See Dkt. 33, pp. 2, 4. However, because Defendant does not seek 7 to strike material contained in or attached to Plaintiff’s Reply, Defendant’s Motion to File a 8 Surreply (Dkt. 34) is denied. 9 Dated this 13th day of April, 2018. A 10 11 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER - 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?