Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01785/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01785-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARL L. RILEY, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

ACCO ENGINEERING SYSTEMS,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01785-JLT-HBK (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY

(Doc. No. 55)

 

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File a Surreply, filed on July 

18, 2024. (Doc. No. 55, “Motion”). Defendant seeks leave to file a sur-reply in light of Plaintiff 

filing a late opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and because Defendant’s 

Reply was filed prior to Plaintiff submitting his Opposition.

1

 (Id. at 2). Defendant attaches to the 

Motion a proposed six-page sur-reply. (Id. at 4-9).

Parties do not have the right to file sur-replies and motions are deemed submitted when 

the time to reply has expired. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(l); see also Garcia v. Biter, 195 F. 

1 Although Local Rule 230(d) permits the moving party to file a Reply within 10 days of the non-moving 

party filing its Opposition, here Defendant appears to have assumed (not without justification) that 

Plaintiff would not be filing any opposition and proceeded to file its Reply once the time to file an 

opposition had expired.

Case 1:21-cv-01785-JLT-HBK Document 57 Filed 07/23/24 Page 1 of 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

2

Supp.3d at 1131, 1133 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2016). The Court generally views motions for leave to 

file a sur-reply with disfavor. Id. (citing U.S. ex rel. Meyer v. Horizon Health Corp., 565 F.3d 

1195, 1203 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not abuse discretion in refusing to permit inequitable 

sur-reply); JG v. Douglas County School Dist., 552 F.3d 786, 803 n. 14 (9th Cir. 2008) (district 

court did not abuse discretion in denying leave to file sur-reply where it did not consider new 

evidence in reply); Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996) (new evidence in reply 

may not be considered without giving the non-movant an opportunity to respond). However, a

court may allow a sur-reply to be filed where there is a valid reason for such additional briefing, 

such as to prevent unfair prejudice. Hill v. England, 2005 WL 3031136, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2005). 

Here, Defendant’s sur-reply addresses, inter alia, whether the Court should consider 

Plaintiff’s untimely Opposition in ruling on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (See

Doc. No. 55 at 5-7). It also responds to Plaintiff’s substantive arguments in opposition to 

summary judgment. (Id. at 7-9). 

Notably, Plaintiff did not seek leave to file his Opposition out of time nor otherwise set 

forth reasons why the Court should consider his late-filled Opposition. Before turning to the 

substance of Plaintiff’s Opposition, the Court must determine whether to consider it, despite it 

being untimely filed. Thus, the Court finds it appropriate to consider Defendant’s arguments in 

the sur-reply. Likewise, if the Court decides to consider the substance of Plaintiff’s Opposition, 

the interests of justice support considering Defendant’s substantive arguments in response to the 

Opposition. See, e.g., Singh v. United States Postal Serv., 2017 WL 11471761, at *6 (N.D. Cal. 

Oct. 10, 2017) (granting sur-reply after opposition filed 12 days late), report and recommendation 

adopted, 2017 WL 11472507 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2017).

Thus, the Court will permit Defendant leave to file a limited sur-reply and will consider 

the proposed sur-reply (Doc. No. 55 at 4-9) when issuing its Findings and Recommendations on 

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Defendant’s motion for leave to file a surreply (Doc. No. 55) is GRANTED.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to separately docket the proposed sur-reply (Doc. No. 

Case 1:21-cv-01785-JLT-HBK Document 57 Filed 07/23/24 Page 2 of 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

3

55 at 4-9) attached to Defendant’s Motion.

Dated: July 23, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01785-JLT-HBK Document 57 Filed 07/23/24 Page 3 of 3