Raiser v. San Diego County

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AARON RAISER, Case No.: 19-cv-0751-GPC-KSC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX v. PARTE APPLICATION TO ALLOW SUR-REPLY SAN DIEGO COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants. [ECF Nos. 172, 173] 17 Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application for an Order to Allow a Sur-Reply. See ECF Nos. 172, 173. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request. “The Court generally views motions for leave to file a surreply with disfavor.” Garcia v. Biter, 195 F. Supp. 3d 1131, 1134 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (citations omitted); accord Viasat, Inc. v. Acacia Commc’ns, Inc., No. 316CV00463BENJMA, 2018 WL 3198798, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2018). While courts have discretion to permit or preclude a sur-reply, the discretion to permit sur- replies should be exercised “only where a valid reason for such additional briefing exists.” Viasat, 2018 WL 3198798, at *1.

25 A new argument or new evidence in a reply brief could be a valid reason for the Court to grant a sur-reply. See, e.g., Banga v. First USA, NA, 29 F. Supp. 3d 1270, 1276 || (N.D. Cal. 2014) (citations omitted). But contrary to Plaintiffs characterization || otherwise, the “new” arguments in Defendants’ Reply brief are merely responses to || Plaintiff's Opposition brief, not new legal issues or new evidence. Cf Garcia, 195 F.

4 || Supp. 3d at 1134 (“Defendants, however, did not provide any new evidence in the reply 5 Plaintiffs opposition nor did Defendants raise new issues or arguments. Rather, || Defendants cited to the record, their Motion, and various legal authorities and ||substantively addressed those new issues raised by Plaintiff in his opposition.”); Great || Am. Ins. Co. v. Berl, No. CV 17-03767 SJO, 2017 WL 8180627, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2017) (“[A]n argument is not ‘new’ when it is made in response to an issue raised in an || earlier briefing.’’).

11 Ultimately the Court views Plaintiff's request as simply “an attempt to have the 12 word on this issue,” a reason why courts “thoroughly disfavor” requests for sur- ||replies. Viasat, 2018 WL 3198798, at *1. The Court rejects such requests, as it refuses || to be “in the position of refereeing an endless volley of briefs.” Fedrick v. Mercedes- || Benz USA, LLC, 366 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1197 (N.D. Ga. 2005).

16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 || Dated: May 17, 2021 2 Ss 19 Hon. athe Coke 20 United States District Judge 28 19-ev-0751-GPC-KSC