Raiser v. San Diego County

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 AARON RAISER, Case No.: 19-cv-0751-GPC-KSC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX 13 v. PARTE APPLICATION TO ALLOW SUR-REPLY 14 SAN DIEGO COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants. [ECF Nos. 172, 173] [16] 17 Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application for an Order to Allow a Sur-Reply. See 18 ECF Nos. 172, 173. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request. “The Court generally views 19 motions for leave to file a surreply with disfavor.” Garcia v. Biter, 195 F. Supp. 3d 1131 , 20 1134 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (citations omitted); accord Viasat, Inc. v. Acacia Commc’ns, Inc., 21 No. 316CV00463BENJMA, 2018 WL 3198798 , at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2018). While 22 courts have discretion to permit or preclude a sur-reply, the discretion to permit sur23 replies should be exercised “only where a valid reason for such additional briefing 24 exists.” Viasat, 2018 WL 3198798 , at *1. 25 A new argument or new evidence in a reply brief could be a valid reason for the 26 Court to grant a sur-reply. See, e.g., Banga v. First USA, NA, 29 F. Supp. 3d 1270 , 1276 [27] 1 || (N.D. Cal. 2014) (citations omitted). But contrary to Plaintiffs characterization 2 || otherwise, the “new” arguments in Defendants’ Reply brief are merely responses to 3 || Plaintiff's Opposition brief, not new legal issues or new evidence. Cf Garcia, 195 F. 4 || Supp. 3d at 1134 (“Defendants, however, did not provide any new evidence in the reply 5 Plaintiffs opposition nor did Defendants raise new issues or arguments. Rather, 6 || Defendants cited to the record, their Motion, and various legal authorities and 7 ||substantively addressed those new issues raised by Plaintiff in his opposition.”); Great 8 || Am. Ins. Co. v. Berl, No. CV 17-03767 SJO, 2017 WL 8180627 , at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 9 2017) (“[A]n argument is not ‘new’ when it is made in response to an issue raised in an 10 || earlier briefing.’’). 11 Ultimately the Court views Plaintiff's request as simply “an attempt to have the 12 word on this issue,” a reason why courts “thoroughly disfavor” requests for sur13 ||replies. Viasat, 2018 WL 3198798 , at *1. The Court rejects such requests, as it refuses 14 || to be “in the position of refereeing an endless volley of briefs.” Fedrick v. Mercedes15 || Benz USA, LLC, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1197 (N.D. Ga. 2005). 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. [17] 18 || Dated: May 17, 2021 2 Ss 19 Hon. athe Coke 20 United States District Judge [27] 28 19-ev-0751-GPC-KSC