Meeker v. Berryhill

Filing 35

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

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