Opinion
CV-22-01717-PHX-MTL
04-15-2024
Sam Alich, Plaintiff, v. Opendoor Technologies Incorporated, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
MICHAEL T. LIBURDI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Opendoor Defendants' Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply to Plaintiffs' Reply in Further Support of Motion for Reconsideration and Memorandum of Law in Support (Doc. 94).
“Neither Fed.R.Civ.P. 7 nor the local rules of practice for this District provide for the filing of a sur-reply, and sur-replies are not authorized by any other rules of procedure absent express prior leave of the Court.” Briggs v. Montgomery, No. CV-18-02684-PHX-EJM, 2019 WL 13039282, at *2 (D. Ariz. Mar. 19, 2019). Instead, they are permissible “when a party raises new issues or new evidence in a reply brief.” Id. (quoting ML Liquidating Trust v. Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C., No. 2:10-CV-02019-RRB, 2011 WL 10451619, at *1 (D. Ariz. Mar. 11, 2011)). But they are “generally discouraged” and are permitted only “in the most extraordinary circumstances.” ML Liquidating Trust, 2011 WL 10451619, at *1.
Defendants have not demonstrated the requisite “extraordinary circumstances” necessary to justify a sur-reply.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Opendoor Defendants' Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply to Plaintiffs' Reply in Further Support of Motion for Reconsideration and Memorandum of Law in Support (Doc. 94) is denied.