In re Opendoor Technologies Incorporated Securities Litigation

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Sam Alich, No. CV-22-01717-PHX-MTL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Opendoor Technologies Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Pending before the Court is Opendoor Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply to Plaintiffs’ Reply in Further Support of Motion for Reconsideration and Memorandum of Law in Support (Doc. 94).

18 “Neither Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 nor the local rules of practice for this District provide for the filing of a sur-reply, and sur-replies are not authorized by any other rules of procedure absent express prior leave of the Court.” Briggs v. Montgomery, No. CV-18-02684-PHX-EJM, 2019 WL 13039282, at *2 (D. Ariz. Mar. 19, 2019). Instead, they are permissible “when a party raises new issues or new evidence in a reply brief.” Id. (quoting ML Liquidating Trust v. Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C., No. 2:10-CV-02019-RRB, 2011 WL 10451619, at *1 (D. Ariz. Mar. 11, 2011)). But they are “generally discouraged” and are permitted only “in the most extraordinary circumstances.”

26 ML Liquidating Trust, 2011 WL 10451619, at *1.

27 Defendants have not demonstrated the requisite “extraordinary circumstances” necessary to justify a sur-reply.

1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED that Opendoor Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply || to Plaintiffs’ Reply in Further Support of Motion for Reconsideration and Memorandum 4|| of Law in Support (Doc. 94) is denied.

5 Dated this 15th day of April, 2024. ’ Wichal T. Hburde 8 Michael T. Liburdi 9 United States District Judge _2-