Qualcomm Incorporated Securities Litigation v. Qualcomm Incorporated

l 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 IN RE QUALCOMM CASE NO. 17cv121 JO-MSB INCORPORATED SECURITIES |} LITIGATION ORDER DENYING REQUEST D FOR SUR-REPLY 16 Defendants Qualcomm Incorporated, Derek A. Aberle, Steven R. Altman, Willian ||F. Davidson, Paul E. Jacobs, Steven M. Mollenkopf, and Donald J. Rosenbers ||(collectively, “Defendants”) have requested to file a sur-reply in opposition to any ||arguments Lead Plaintiffs may raise on the issue of price impact in their reply in suppor 20 of their motion for class certification. Dkt. 229. Defendants have also requested to move 21 hearing date from September 14, 2022, to the next available date after September 21 22 2022.

23 For the reasons described below, Defendants’ request to file a sur-reply is deniec || without prejudice. Permitting the filing ofa sur-reply is within the discretion of the distric ||court. Nat’l Cas. Co. v. Nat’l Strength & Conditioning Ass’n, 2020 WL 2991508, at *] |\(S.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). “A district court may allow a surreply to be filed, but only where 27 valid reason for such additional briefing exists, such as where the movant raises new || arguments in its reply brief.” Daniels v. ComUnity Lending, Inc., 2015 WL 2338713, a || *4(S.D. Cal. May 12, 2015), aff'd, 621 F. App’x 427 (9th Cir. 2015). Here, Lead Plaintiffs ||have yet to file a reply brief, and therefore the proposed sur-reply is premature. Defendants ||may renew their request for a sur-reply after the parties have submitted the scheduled || briefing on class certification. The Court therefore DENIES the motion [Dkt. 229].

6 || IT ISSO ORDERED.

7 |/Dated: 7/1 [2022- 8 Qe 10 ee iil Hon. Jinsook Ohta | United States District Court