Opinion
22-11382
10-12-2022
SAMUEL DAVID WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. BETHESDA SOFTWORKS, Defendant.
David M. Lawson United States District Judge
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE (ECF No. 15) AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE AS MOOT (ECF No. 16)
Curtis Ivy, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge
On June 28, 2022, Defendant Bethesda Softworks moved to dismiss. (ECF No. 5). This matter was referred to the undersigned for all pretrial matters. (ECF No. 7). The response to the motion to dismiss was due by July 28, 2022, and Defendant's reply was due by August 11, 2022. (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff timely responded (ECF No. 9) and Defendant timely replied (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff then filed another response to Defendant's motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 15). Defendant moved to strike Plaintiff's supplemental response. (ECF No. 16).
Each motion and response must be accompanied by only a single brief, unless otherwise permitted by the court. E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(d)(1)(A). Plaintiff did not obtain leave of court before filing his supplemental response to defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's supplemental response to defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 16) was improper.
For this reason, Plaintiff's response to defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 15) will be STRICKEN from the record. Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's response to motion to dismiss (ECF No. 16) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Review of this Order is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 and Local Rule 72.1.