1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Case No. 2:19-cv-01132-JCM-EJY COMMISSION, 5 Plaintiff, 6 ORDER v. 7 JOHNNY R. THOMAS, et al. 8 Defendants. 9 10 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Reply Papers (ECF No. 71). Plaintiff 11 seeks leave of court pursuant to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada Local Rule IB 3- 12 1(a) and LR IB 3-2(a), which allow the filing of a reply in support of an objection to a Magistrate 13 Judge’s order “only with leave of the court.” Plaintiff claims a reply is appropriate here so that 14 Plaintiff may “respond to arguments that Defendants … made for the first time and cases they cited 15 for the first time in their response papers … .” ECF No. 71 at 1. More specifically, Plaintiff states 16 that it must be allowed to respond to Defendants’ analogy of interview notes taken by SEC 17 investigators to interview notes taken by FBI investigators, Defendants citations to non-SEC cases 18 including some outside the Ninth Circuit, and Defendants characterization of the Magistrate Judge’s 19 redactions of SEC notes because Defendants have not seen those redactions. Id. at 1-2. 20 After reviewing the parties’ respective arguments presented in the Objection (ECF No. 65) 21 and Response (ECF No. 68), the Court finds that Defendants’ arguments respond to Plaintiff’s 22 Objection; Defendants do not present new arguments. When arguments made in opposition to an 23 objection are in response to the arguments in that objection, a reply is not warranted. See Panliant 24 Financial Corp. v. ISEE3D, Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-01376-PMP-CHW,

, at *8 25 (D. Nev. July 21, 2014 (when a filing responds to arguments raised in a motion or opposition, the 26 filing does not raise new arguments); In re Lake at Las Vegas Joint Venture, LLC, et al., Case No. 27 2:11-cv-1346-JAD-PAL,

, at *1 (D. Nev. Jan. 8, 2014) (same). See also Quintero 1 v. Bisbee, Case No. 3:16-cv-00673-MMD-CBC,

, at *4 (D. Nev. Sept. 10, □□□□ 2 || (reply to an objection is unnecessary given Plaintiff's previous opportunity to brief the issues). 3 The Court notes that Defendants did not characterize the Magistrate Judge’s redactions, b 4 || rather spoke of the process to which the parties agreed and Plaintiff's opportunity to seek review | 5 || the Court’s proposed redactions before release of any portion of the notes to Defendants. ECF N 6 || 68 at 4:9-18; 8:7-14. As for Defendants’ reference to FBI investigators, this appears in a sing 7 || footnote in which Defendants state that “an FBI agent’s interview notes would routinely | 8 || produced.” at 3 n.1l. Finally, the reviewing Court is more than capable of analyzin 9 || distinguishing or relying on case law to which the parties’ cite. 10 In sum, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that Defendants raise new arguments or that if Plainti 11 || is denied the inability to respond to Defendants, Plaintiff would be prejudiced in any way. Plainti 12 || has had a full opportunity to argue why it believes the Magistrate Judge’s Order is wrong and mu 13 || be overturned. ECF No. 65 at 9-15. And, Plaintiff, like Defendants, cites substantial case law fro 14 || courts within and outside of the Ninth Circuit. Jd. While Plaintiff has not responded to the sing 15 || footnote by Defendants referencing FBI investigators, this citation does not comprise a ne 16 || argument as it simply points out a distinction between notes taken by FBI investigators, who a 17 || non-lawyers, and SEC investigators, who are lawyers. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Rep 19 || Papers (ECF No. 71) is DENIED. 20 DATED this 25th day of January, 2021.

22 . ELAYNAW. YOUCHA 23 UNITEDSTATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28