Mack v. Aranas ( 2020 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 CHRISTOPHER D. MACK, Case No. 2:17-cv-02239-APG-EJY 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. 7 ROMERO ARANAS, et al, 8 Defendants. 9 10 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement of Time, FRCP 11 6(b)/FRAP26(b). ECF No. 44. The Court has reviewed the Motion. No response was filed by 12 Defendants. 13 The Motion seems to seek an enlargement of time to file a response to Defendants’ Reply in 14 support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. However, no response to the Reply is 15 permitted by the Rules without leave of court and such a response (called a sur-reply), is strongly 16 discouraged. Kanvick v. City of Reno, Case No. 3:06-CV-00058, 2008 WL 873085, at *1, n. 1 (D. 17 Nev. March 27, 2008) (“a party must obtain leave from the Court before filing a surreply.”); LR 7- 18 2(b). The Court also notes that Plaintiff filed a Sur-Reply, without leave of court but to which no 19 objection has been filed, on the same day as he filed the instant motion. 20 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement of Time, FRCP 6(b)/FRAP26(b), (ECF No. 21 44) is DENIED as moot. 22 23 Dated this 18th day of December, 2020. 24 25 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27