From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peoples v. Machuca

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Aug 10, 2021
19-cv-05468-YGR (PR) (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2021)

Opinion

19-cv-05468-YGR (PR)

08-10-2021

TIMOTHY PEOPLES, Plaintiff, v. RAUL MACHUCA, et al., Defendants.


ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPLY

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are Plaintiffs requests for leave to file a sur-reply and for an extension of time “to file [his] objection to Defendants['] reply” in support of the pending motion for summary judgment. Dkts. 72, 75. Defendants object to Plaintiff s request for leave to file a sur-reply. Dkt. 74.

First, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed his request for leave to file a sur-reply prior to Defendants filing their reply. See Dkts. 72, 73. In any event, Defendants have since filed their reply. Dkt. 73. After Defendants filed their reply, Plaintiff filed his request for an extension of time to file his sur-reply. Dkt. 75. Because the Local Rules do not permit the filing of a response to a reply, see Civ. L.R. 7-3(d), the Court liberally construes Plaintiffs pending motions as requests for leave to file a sur-reply. However, Plaintiff has not shown, nor is there any indication in the record, that a sur-reply is either necessary or appropriate. Accordingly, Plaintiffs requests are DENIED. Dkt. 72, 75.

This Order terminates Docket No. 72 and 75.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Peoples v. Machuca

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Aug 10, 2021
19-cv-05468-YGR (PR) (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2021)
Case details for

Peoples v. Machuca

Case Details

Full title:TIMOTHY PEOPLES, Plaintiff, v. RAUL MACHUCA, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Aug 10, 2021

Citations

19-cv-05468-YGR (PR) (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2021)