Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No. 02-2614-CM
January 6, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Surreply (Doc. 39). Defendant in this case filed a motion for summary judgment, along with suggestions in support, on August 22, 2003. Plaintiff filed suggestions in opposition to that motion on October 8, 2003. Defendant then filed reply suggestions on October 28, 2003. Plaintiff contends that, in those reply suggestions, defendant made a new argument not previously raised in its suggestions in support.
The rules of this court do not provide for the filing of surreplies. D. Kan. Rule 7.1. The courts in this district do not permit a surreply without leave of the court, and reserve leave for rare circumstances as "where a movant improperly raises new arguments in a reply." E. E. O. C. v. Int'l Paper Co., 1992 WL 370850 (D. Kan. Oct. 28, 1992). Such rules are not only fair and reasonable, but they assist the court in defining when briefed matters are finally submitted and in minimizing the battles over which side should have the last word. McShares, Inc. v. Barry, 979 F. Supp. 1338, 1341 (D. Kan. 1997).
Upon consideration, the court determines that defendant did not raise any new arguments in its reply brief which were not advanced in its opening brief. Instead, defendant replied to the arguments advanced in plaintiffs response brief. Plaintiff has not shown that this is one of those rare circumstances where such leave should be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Surreply (Doc. 39) is denied.