UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EMILY ODERMATT, Plaintiff, -against- Case No. 1:24-cv-05250 (JLR) THE MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL, MOUNT SINAI ORDER HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., and MOUNT SINAI HOSPITALS GROUP, INC., Defendants. JENNIFER L. ROCHON, United States District Judge: The Court is in receipt of three letters from Plaintiff, two of which request leave to sur- reply to Defendants’ reply memorandum of law in further support of their motion for summary judgment, see Dkts. 208, 209, and the third of which seeks to clarify an argument she made in her opposition brief in light of arguments Defendants made on reply, see Dkt. 210. Sur-reply is not expressly permitted by Local Rule 6.1(b) or by this Court’s Individual Rules. Nevertheless, courts in this District often accept sur-replies from pro se plaintiffs in an effort to afford those plaintiffs the “special solicitude” they are due. See, e.g., Saleh v. Pastore, No. 19-cv-11799 (KPF),

, at *3 n.5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2021) (“accept[ing] and consider[ing]” pro se plaintiff’s sur-reply in accordance with court’s “duty to extend special solicitude to pro se litigants”); Rivera v. City of New York, No. 16-cv-09709 (GHW),

, at *2 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2019) (similar). In accordance with this practice, the Court accepts Plaintiff’s third letter, Dkt. 210, as a sur-reply and will consider it alongside her summary judgment papers. Moreover, Plaintiff's requests for leave to sur-reply, Dkts. 208, 209, are GRANTED. She is permitted to submit one (1) further sur-reply no longer than eight (8) pages. She shall do so by Monday, October 6, 2025. Dated: October 2, 2025 New York, New York SO ORDERED.

fei L. ROCHON United States District Judge