(PC) Villery v. Jones ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JARED M. VILLERY, Case No. 1:15-cv-01360-DAD-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF CONSTRUED MOTION FOR PERMISSION 13 v. TO FILE LIMITED SURREPLY AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 14 JAY JONES, ET. AL., FILE SURREPLY 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 174) 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a surreply, 18 filed on February 22, 2022. (Doc. No. 174). Noting the dates on which Plaintiff filed his 19 opposition to the motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of Defendants Yerton, Schmidt, 20 Escarcega, and Jones, and Defendants’ reply (Doc. No. 171), Plaintiff requests a extension of 21 time until March 9, 2022 to file a surreply. (Id. at 1-2). 22 Parties do not have the right to file surreplies and motions are deemed submitted when the 23 time to reply has expired. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(l); see also Garcia v. Biter, 195 F. Supp.3d 24 at 1131, 1133 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2016). The Court generally views motions for leave to file a 25 surreply with disfavor. Id. (citing U.S. ex rel. Meyer v. Horizon Health Corp., 565 F.3d 1195, 26 1203 (9th Cir. 2009)(district court did not abuse discretion in refusing to permit inequitable 27 surreply); JG v. Douglas County School Dist., 552 F.3d 786, 803 n. 14 (9th Cir. 2008)(district 28 court did not abuse discretion in denying leave to file surreply where it did not consider new 1 | evidence in reply; Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996)(new evidence in reply 2 | may not be considered without giving the non-movant an opportunity to respond. 3 Although Plaintiff requests only an enlargement of time until March 9, 2022 to file his 4 | surreply, the Court liberally construes the motion as incorporating a request for leave to file a 5 | surreply. Plaintiff does not claim that Defendants have presented new evidence in reply to his 6 | opposition to their summary judgment motion. Instead, Plaintiff explains he wants to file a 7 | surreply to “rebut objections [defendants] have lodged against his evidence” opposing 8 | Defendants’ summary judgment motion. (/d. at 4). Plaintiff also references amended 9 | supplemental interrogatory responses provided by Defendant Schmidt. (/d.). 10 While generally the courts disfavor the filing of surreplies, the Court will permit Plaintiff 11 | leave to file a limited surreply. In so doing, Plaintiff's surreply must only address Defendants’ 12 | reply (Doc. No. 171), consist of no more than 7 pages in length, and must be delivered to 13 | correctional officials for mailing no later than March 9, 2022. No further enlargements of time 14 | will be permitted for Plaintiff to file a surreply. 15 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 16 1. Plaintiffs construed motion to file surreply and motion for an extension of time to file 17 | asurreply is GRANTED to the extent set forth herein. (Doc. No. 174) 18 2. Plaintiff may file a surreply to Defendants Yerton, Schmidt, Escarcega, and Jones’ 19 | Reply (Doc. No. 171), to be delivered to correctional officials for mailing no later than March 9, 20 | 2022, consisting of no more than 7 pages in length, addressing only Defendants’ reply. No 21 | further extensions of time will be permitted. | Dated: _ March 1, 2022 law Nh. fareh Sass □□□ 23 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28