Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_22-cv-01196/USCOURTS-azd-2_22-cv-01196-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal - Breach of Contract - Insurance

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Industrial Park Center LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Great Northern Insurance Company, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-22-01196-PHX-MTL

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Industrial Park Center LLC’s (“Industrial 

Park”) motion to strike Defendant Great Northern Insurance Company’s (“GNIC”) reply 

exhibits. The motion to strike is fully briefed.1(Docs. 122, 123.) For the forthcoming 

reasons, the Court denies Industrial Park’s motion (Doc. 122) but gives leave for Industrial 

Park to file a sur-reply.

I.

On August 9, 2024, GNIC filed a motion for attorney’s fees (Doc. 116), which 

included Exhibit B, an exhibit showing an itemized statement of time expended and fees 

incurred by GNIC—with many line-item descriptions redacted. (Doc. 116-2.) Industrial 

Park timely responded, arguing in part that GNIC cannot be awarded fees for work that has 

no description. (Doc. 120 at 6-8.) Specifically, Industrial Park claims that over $24,000 of 

the fees claimed by GNIC have “no description” or “the description is not sufficient for the 

1

Industrial Park’s deadline to file a reply has passed, and as such, the motion is fully 

briefed. Furthermore, neither party requested oral argument on the motion to strike. After 

considering the briefs, the Court has determined that oral argument is not necessary for its 

decisional process.

Case 2:22-cv-01196-MTL Document 124 Filed 10/18/24 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Court to conclude the fees are reasonable.” (Id. at 7.) GNIC then filed a reply and included 

revised redacted invoices in Exhibit A, explaining that it still kept privileged information 

redacted. (Id. at 8; Doc. 121-1.)

Shortly thereafter, Industrial Park filed a motion to strike asking the Court to strike 

GNIC’s reply Exhibit A. (Doc. 122.) 

II.

Industrial Park argues that new evidence may not be introduced within a reply 

because it prejudices the non-moving party. (Doc. 122 at 3.) GNIC argues that Exhibit A 

in the reply brief is not “new” evidence but the same Exhibit B that was previously 

proffered with revised redacted information. (Doc. 123 at 2.)

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(m) authorizes the Court to strike “any part of a 

filing or submission on the ground that it is prohibited (or not authorized) by a statute, rule, 

or court order.” LRCiv. 7.2(m)(1). “The decision to grant or deny a motion to strike is 

within the [C]ourt’s discretion.” Sunburst Minerals, LLC v. Emerald Copper Corp., 300 F. 

Supp. 3d 1056, 1059 (D. Ariz. 2018).

Here, in its reply GNIC responded to Industrial Park’s arguments by attaching 

Exhibit A. Reply Exhibit A does not provide completely new evidence—it is the same as 

of the response Exhibit B—but also provides less descriptions redacted than before. 

(Compare Doc. 116-2, with Doc. 121-1.) Industrial Park, however, is correct that it is 

prejudiced because it did not receive a chance to respond and argue the reasonableness of 

the Exhibit A entries. See LRCiv 54.2(e) (“The party seeking an award of fees must 

adequately describe the services rendered so that the reasonableness of the charge can be 

evaluated.”). Rather than strike GNIC’s reply exhibit, the Court will allow Industrial Park 

an opportunity to file a sur-reply. See, e.g., Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1487, 1483 (9th 

Cir. 1996) (“Where new evidence is presented in a reply to a motion for summary 

judgment, the district court should not consider the new evidence without giving the nonmovant an opportunity to respond.” (cleaned up)).

....

Case 2:22-cv-01196-MTL Document 124 Filed 10/18/24 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

III.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED denying Industrial Park’s motion to strike (Doc. 122).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Industrial Park may file a sur-reply to GNIC’s 

motion for attorneys’ fees (Doc. 116) no later than seven (7) days from the date of this 

Order.

Dated this 18th day of October, 2024.

Case 2:22-cv-01196-MTL Document 124 Filed 10/18/24 Page 3 of 3