Opinion
3:09-cv-00381-LRH-VPC
02-08-2013
FRANK M. PECK, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS, et al., Defendants.
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTES OF THE COURT
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE VALERIE P. COOKE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEPUTY CLERK: LISA MANN REPORTER: NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the court is plaintiff's motion to strike and motion for further briefing (#103). Defendants opposed (#107). Plaintiff did not reply. Plaintiff contends that defendants' reply to their motion for summary judgment (#100) contains misrepresentations which are "outside the scope of their motion" (#103, p. 3). Plaintiff asserts that since defendants have introduced new evidence, plaintiff has a right to respond and/or asks the court to strike defendants' reply memorandum. Id. at 4. Defendants oppose plaintiff's motion on the grounds that defendants' arguments in their reply were responsive to the issues plaintiff raised in his opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment (#98). The court finds that defendants' reply to their motion for summary judgment (#100) appropriately responded to the issues plaintiff raised in his opposition (#98). Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to strike and motion for further briefing (#103) is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By: __________
Deputy Clerk