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.