Opinion
21-CV-1888 JLS (DEB)
12-28-2021
SALESDRIVERS, HELPERS AND DAIRY EMPLOYEES, LOCAL UNION NO. 683, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, Plaintiff, v. PASHA AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES, Defendant.
ORDER (1) DENYING
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
STRIKE AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPLY
(ECF NO. 21)
HON. JANIS L. SAMMARTINO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Presently before the Court is Defendant Pasha Automotive Services' Motion to Strike (“Mot., ” ECF No. 21-1). Plaintiff Salesdrivers, Helpers and Dairy Employees, Local Union No. 683, International Brotherhood of Teamsters filed an opposition to the Motion (“Opp'n, ” ECF No. 22). For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion but GRANTS Defendant leave to file a sur-reply.
Defendant requests that the Court strike the Supplemental Declaration of Lee Fletcher (“Fletcher Decl, ” ECF No. 20-1) and page 3, lines 1-2 and 5-22 of Plaintiff s Reply Brief in support of its Application for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 20). See generally Mot. Defendant argues that Plaintiff “improperly proffer[s] new evidence for the first time on reply.” Mot. at 1. Defendant claims that Mr. Fletcher's Supplemental Declaration “contains all new evidence, including four new exhibits, on the topics that his original Declaration had already addressed[.]” Mot. at 3. Mr. Fletcher's Supplemental Declaration and this portion of the Reply describe the steps the Parties have taken to pursue the grievance procedure in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. See generally Fletcher Decl. Defendant argues this “tactic self-evidently deprives [Defendant] of the opportunity to respond to such evidence, which is a denial of due process that is highly prejudicial[.]” Mot. at 3. In response, Plaintiff argues the evidence “is directly responsive to the issues raised in the [Defendant's Opposition.” Opp'n at 3. Plaintiff claims that the exhibits “rebut the [Defendant]'s contention that the [Plaintiff] is not complying with the mediation process prior to arbitration.” Id. at 4.
The Court finds that striking Mr. Fletcher's Supplemental Declaration and portions of Plaintiff s Reply is unwarranted under these circumstances. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Strike. However, Defendant MAY FILE a sur-reply to respond to the new evidence raised in Plaintiffs Reply and Mr. Fletcher's Supplemental Declaration. Such a sur-reply, if any, may not exceed five (5) pages and may be filed within seven days of the date this order is electronically docketed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.