Therefore, even when untimely objections to a magistrate judge's R&R are received before a district court issues an order adopting the R&R, the district court may still review the R&R for clear error. See Silver v. Salessandro, No. 15CV3462ARRST, 2019 WL 6173398, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2019) (reviewing R&R for clear error, despite untimely objections received from pro se plaintiff); Ramon v. Corp. City of New York, No. 17-CV-2307(KAM), 2019 WL 1306061, at *2 n.4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2019).

"Motions for leave to file sur-reply information are subject to the sound discretion of the court." Ramon v. Corp. City of New York, 2019 WL 1306061, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2019)

However, where a party requesting to submit a sur-reply was on notice of the opposing party's argument or the party had “ample opportunity” to address the argument, courts have denied leave to file a sur-reply. Baerga v. City of Hartford, 22-CV-811 (SVN), 2022 WL 16856097, at *3 (D. Conn. Nov. 10, 2022); see also Ramon v. Corp. City of New York, No. 17-CV-2307 (KAM), 2019 WL 1306061, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2019). Here, the issue of whether PHC would be permitted to view the Table of Contents was in dispute prior to Bojorquez's in camera submission, see McGonigle Declaration Ex. 1 at 1, and prior to its submission of its proposed sur-reply.

Moreover, “the decision to permit a litigant to submit a surreply is a matter left to the court's discretion, as is the decision to strike a party's filing.” Id. “Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for filing a sur-reply as he has not established that the defendants raised a new issue for the first time on reply.” Ramon v. Corp. City of New York, No. 17-cv-2307, 2019 WL 1306061, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. 2019). Thus, for the purposes of this order I disregard plaintiff's unauthorized sur-replies and take into account only his timely objections to the R&R, made on May 9, 2022, at ECF No 381.

After considering this limited assistance, the Court nevertheless concludes that the SAC and Plaintiff's Opposition are entitled to the liberal reading afforded to pro se litigants for the purpose of considering the instant motion. See Ramon v. Corp. City of New York, No. 17-cv-2307, 2019 WL 1306061, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2019).

See Lawler v. Viaport New York, LLC, No. 1:19 CV 548 (GLS) (CFH), 2019 WL 6134180, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2019), appeal dismissed sub nom. Lawler v. Via Port New York, LLC, 2020 WL 3250227 (2d Cir. Apr. 30, 2020) ("[I]n light of [plaintiff's] pro se status, the court has considered his untimely objections for clear error."); see also Ramon v. Corp. City of New York, No. 17-CV-2307(KAM), 2019 WL 1306061, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2019), appeal dismissed, 2019 WL 3406526 (2d Cir. May 21, 2019) ("The court finds that plaintiff's objections were untimely, and as such, may review the R&R for clear error."). In her R&R, Judge Wang finds that this action should be dismissed as time-barred, reasoning as follows:

Dkt. No. 152. As defendants did not identify any new arguments raised by plaintiffs for the first time in their reply, I denied the request without prejudice. Dkt. No. 154; see, e.g., Ramon v. Corp. City of New York, No. 17-CV-2307 (KAM), 2019 WL 1306061, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2019) ("Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for filing a sur-reply as he has not established that the [] defendants raised a new issue for the first time on reply."). On August 8, 2019, notwithstanding the Court's denial, defendants then filed a letter to "renew their motion based on the following new arguments (and issues stemming therefrom) advanced in plaintiffs' reply."