Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00463/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00463-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338pt Patent Infringement

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

FILED ....-

JUN 2 6 2018 

CLERK US DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHER~J?.'.f CT OF CALIFORNIA 

BY .( DEPUTY 

v 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VIASAT, INC., a Delaware corporation, 

Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant, 

v. 

ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a 

Delaware corporation, 

Defendant and Counter-Claimant. 

Case No.: 3:16-cv-00463-BEN-JMA 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' EX 

PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE 

TO FILE A SUR-REPLY 

(Doc. No. 113] 

18 On February 15, 2018, PlaintiffViaSat, Inc. ("ViaSat") filed an Ex Parte 

19 Application for Leave to File Sur-Reply. Acacia Communications, Inc. ("Acacia") filed 

20 an Opposition. (Doc. No. 114.) Courts generally view motions for leave to file a sur21 reply with disfavor. Hill v. England, 2005 WL 3031136, at * 1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2005). 

22 However, permitting the filing of a sur-reply is within the discretion of the district court. 

23 Schmidt v. Shah, 696 F. Supp. 2d 44, 60 (D.D.C. 2010) ("The decision to grant or deny 

24 leave to file a sur-reply is committed to the sound discretion of the court." "Although the 

25 court in its discretion [may] allow the filing of a sur-reply, this discretion should be 

26 exercised in favor of allowing a sur-reply only where a valid reason for such additional 

27 briefing exists." Johnson v. Wennes, No. 08-cv-1798, 2009 WL 1161620, at *2 (S.D. 

28 

3: 16-cv-00463-BEN-JMA 

Case 3:16-cv-00463-BEN-JMA Document 172 Filed 06/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
1 Cal. April 28, 2009). Neither the federal rules nor the local rules permit a sur-reply as a 

2 matter of course. 

3 ViaSat contends its sur-reply is necessary to enable it to respond to Acacia's false 

4 allegations asserted in their Reply in Support of the Motion for Partial Summary 

5 Judgment. (Doc. No. 109.) Specifically, Acacia's accusation ViaSat "materially 

6 misleading this Court" by citing Digjtal Envoy, Inc. v. Google, Inc. 1 ("Digital Envoy F') 

7 without also referencing the courts January 24, 2006 order2 ("Digital Envoy If') as well. 

8 ViaSat further alleges Acacia's Reply materially changes one of the grounds of its 

9 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 75.) 

10 Acacia argues ViaSat's proposed Sur-Reply focuses on an issue, the 

11 reconsideration decision of the court in Digital Envoy II - that ViaSat could (and should) 

12 have cited in its Opposition, instead of simply discussing Digital Envoy I. When ViaSat 

13 neglected to address Digital Envoy II in its reply, Acacia was compelled to do so in its 

14 response. 

15 Having reviewed the parties' memoranda and with a firm grasp of their asserted 

16 positions, the Court does not find a valid reason to allow ViaSat to file its Sur-Reply. 

17 To begin with, the Court disagrees with Viasat's characterization of Acacia's reply as 

18 misleading, or that it materially changes one of the grounds of its Motion for Partial 

19 Summary Judgment. In the Court's view, Acacia's reply simply responds to the 

20 arguments ViaSat raises in its opposition, which is in keeping with the nature and 

21 purpose of a reply. Specifically, Acacia provides a counter response to ViaSat' s 

22 allegations. The Court finds ViaSat's request for leave to file a sur-reply as more of an 

23 attempt to have the last word on this issue instead of identifying new issues raised for the 

24 first time in the reply. This is precisely why Courts so thoroughly disfavor requests to 

25 file sur-replies. 

26 

27 

1 Digital Envoy, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 2005 WL 29993364 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2005) 

28 2 Doc. No. 109-2, Ex. 89 ("Digital Envoy IF') 

2 

3: l 6-cv-00463-BEN-JMA 

Case 3:16-cv-00463-BEN-JMA Document 172 Filed 06/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
1 Going forward, the Court suggests the parties put aside whether this exercise was 

2 necessary, or whether the Court's resources are best spent policing the scope of the 

3 parties' already-voluminous filings. See Mission Power Eng'g Co. v. Cont'! Cas. Co., 

4 883 Supp. 488, 491-92 (C.D. Cal. 1995) ("When an ex parte motion is filed ... the judge 

5 drops everything," expecting that the "tomatoes are about to spoil or the yacht is about to 

6 leave the jurisdiction and that all will be lost unless immediate action is taken."). The 

7 parties seem to have forgotten that "A district court may refuse to consider new 

8 [arguments or] evidence submitted for the first time in a reply if the evidence should have 

9 been presented" earlier. See Wallace v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., SACV 08-1463 

10 AG (MLGx), 2009 WL 4349534, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2009); cf Provenz v. Miller, 

11 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996.) To avoid the additional acrimony, cost, and effort 

12 of filing a sur-reply (and the potential request to file a sur-sur-reply), the Court will 

13 simply exercise its discretion to ignore any improper material that may or may not have 

14 been included in the papers. Three rounds of briefs are enough. Replies to replies to 

15 replies are too much. 

16 Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES ViaSat's Ex Parte Application for Leave 

17 to File a Sur-Reply. The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment remains under 

18 submission. 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June~018 

3 

3: 16-cv-00463-BEN-JMA 

Case 3:16-cv-00463-BEN-JMA Document 172 Filed 06/26/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3