Opinion
19-cv-06046-HSG
09-07-2021
DONNIE SCOTT, Plaintiff, v. ERIC GOLDING, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT REQUESTS FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY AND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE SURREPLY
RE: DKT. NOS. 69, 70, 71
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison - Los Angeles County, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) doctors Kumar and RN Golding. Defendants have filed two separate summary judgment motions, Dkt. Nos. 61, 62; Plaintiff has filed oppositions, Dkt. Nos. 65, 66; and Defendants have filed replies, Dkt. No. 67, 68. Plaintiff has filed two motions titled requests for leave to file a response to the replies. Dkt. Nos. 69, 70. However, these motions are, in essence, surreplies, making point-by-point rebuttals to arguments made in the replies. Plaintiff has also filed a request for an extension of time to file his surreplies. Dkt. No. 71. For the reason set forth below, Plaintiff's requests are DENIED.
Rule 7-3(d) of the Local Rules of the Northern District of California provides that “[o]nce a reply is filed, no additional memoranda, papers or letters may be filed without prior Court approval” with two exceptions. Additional memoranda may be filed after a reply is filed where (1) new evidence has been submitted in the reply, in which case the surreply is limited to objections to the new evidence without further argument on the motion, or (2) to bring the Court's attention to a relevant judicial opinion published after the date the opposition or reply was filed, in which case the surreply is limited to a copy of the opinion, without further argument. N.D. Cal. L. R. 7-3(d). Neither exception applies here. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs requests for leave to file a surreply. Dkt. Nos. 69, 70.
The Court notes that Plaintiff objects inter alia to the argument made in Defendants' replies that Plaintiffs Statements of Disputed Factual Issues should be disregarded because they violate N.D. Cal. L. R. 56-2(a). See Dkt. No. 67 at 1-2; Dkt. No. 68 at 1-2; Dkt. No. 69 at 1-2; Dkt. No. 70 at 1-2. The Court rejects Defendants' argument that Plaintiffs Statements of Disputed Facts cannot be considered pursuant to the Local Rules. The Court will consider the entirety of Plaintiff s oppositions, i.e. Dkt. Nos. 67 and 68, including the exhibits attached thereto and the statements of disputed material facts. Plaintiffs opposition complies with N.D. Cal. L. R. 7. In light of the denials of the requests for leave to file surreplies, the Court DENIES as moot Plaintiffs request for an extension of time to file surreplies. Dkt. No. 71.
This order terminates Dkt. Nos. 69, 70, 71.
IT IS SO ORDERED.