Gilley v. CH Robinson Worldwide, Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part C. H. Robinson's 281 motion to strike plaintiffs' reply briefs or for permission to file its own reply briefs. The court will not strike plaintiffs' reply briefs, but Robinson may file its own reply briefs on or before 7/23/2021. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 7/16/2021. (cc: counsel of record) (arb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Clinton Eugene Gilley, as Administrator
of the Estate of CARL DAVID GILLEY,
Nicole Leigh Le, as Administrator of the
Estate of CHRISTINE TARA WARDEN GILLEY,
and Clinton Eugene Gilley and Nicole
Leigh Le as Co-Administrators of the
Estates of J.G. and G.G., minor children,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-00536
C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC.,
J&TS TRANSPORT EXPRESS, INC.,
and BERTRAM COPELAND,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is defendant C.H. Robinson’s
motion to strike plaintiffs’ reply briefs or for permission to
file its own reply briefs.
(ECF No. 281.)
Robinson argues that
because the court’s amended scheduling order specified dates for
motions in limine and opposition thereto but did not specify a
date for reply briefs, reply briefs are not permissible under
the scheduling order.
Plaintiffs contend that, notwithstanding
the silence of the scheduling order, their reply briefs are
permissible under this court’s local rules.
See LR Civ. P.
Plaintiffs propose that Robinson be given leave to
file its own reply briefs; alternatively, plaintiffs offer to
withdraw their reply briefs.
The court will adopt the first
proposal and allow Robinson to file its own reply briefs within
seven days of this order.
The question is basically whether the silence of the
scheduling order implicitly prohibits or implicitly allows reply
Both positions are eminently reasonable.
fundamental fairness requires either striking the replies or
allowing Robinson to file its own.
Robinson suggests that
judicial economy favors striking the replies.
may be correct, it is just as likely that the replies will help
narrow the issues.
The docket entries are numerous in this
matter, but both sides have skilled counsel whose briefs the
court has found helpful in resolving the issues raised in this
case thus far.
The court, therefore, welcomes the opportunity
to review Robinson’s reply briefs in resolving the motions in
Accordingly, Robinson’s motion to strike (ECF No. 281) is
GRANTED in part.
The court will not strike plaintiffs’ reply
briefs, but Robinson may file its own reply briefs on or before
July 23, 2021.
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to counsel of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of July, 2021.
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge
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?