Crooker v. Tessitore

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DENISE ANNE CROOKER, : CIVIL NO: 3:20-cv-01695 : Plaintiff, : (Judge Jones) : v. : (Magistrate Judge Schwab) : GEORGE J. TESSITORE, et al., : : Defendants. : ORDER January 11, 2022 We are in receipt of Plaintiff’s motion to file a sur-reply brief, doc. 107, and it is DENIED without prejudice. The court has discretion in deciding whether a sur-reply brief will be permitted. Mallory v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:19-CV- 744, 2021 WL 5826211, at *2 (M.D. Pa. July 20, 2021). And “[c]ourts within this Circuit have found that ‘[s]ur-reply briefs are seldom necessary,’ and that ‘[t]hey are appropriate only where a party “seek[s] to respond to an argument raised for the first time” by an opposing party.’” Id. (quoting Gentry v. Sikrosky Aircraft Corp., No. 18-1326, 2018 WL 6329147, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 4, 2018)). “Other courts have ‘granted leave to file a sur-reply brief when the brief was helpful in resolving the issues presented in the case.’” Id. (quoting Souffrant v. Hyrowich, No. 07-cv-4475, 2009 WL 10737145, at *2 n.2 (E.D. Pa. May 4, 2009)).

Here, Defendants have just today filed their reply brief. Doc. 108. In order for the court to consider Plaintiff’s motion to file a sur-reply brief, IT IS ORDERED that, on or before January 22, 2022, she shall file a one-page letter on the docket outlining clearly and specifically on what issues any reply brief would be based in keeping with Third Circuit case law.

S/Susan E. Schwab Susan E. Schwab United States Magistrate Judge