Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01054/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01054-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

– 1 – 17cv1054

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITIZENS FOR QUALITY 

EDUCATION SAN DIEGO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 17-cv-1054-BAS-JMA

ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE

REQUEST TO FILE SURREPLY 

IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION 

TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[ECF No. 52]

v.

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is an ex parte motion filed by Defendants to file a 

surreply in support of their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary 

injunction. (ECF No. 52.) Plaintiffs filed a reply brief in support of their motion for 

a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 51) with 22 new exhibits (ECF No. 51-2), and a 

reply brief to CAIR-CA’s amicus curiae brief (ECF No. 50). Defendants seek to file 

a surreply to respond to the new evidence submitted by Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 52 at 2.) 

Plaintiffs oppose the motion. (ECF No. 53.) For the reasons herein, the Court grants 

Defendants’ ex parte motion.

Case 3:17-cv-01054-BAS-JMA Document 54 Filed 05/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
– 2 – 17cv1054

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

DISCUSSION

A decision to grant or deny leave to file a surreply is committed to the “sound 

discretion” of the court. See Brady v. Grendene USA, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-0604-GPCKSC, 2015 WL 6828400, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2015); United States v. Venture 

One Mortg. Corp., No. 13-CV-1872 W (JLB), 2015 WL 12532139, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 

Feb. 26, 2015). Such discretion “should be exercised in favor of allowing a surreply 

only when a valid reason for such additional briefing exists, . . .” Hill v. England, 

No. CVF05869RECTAG, 2005 WL 3031136, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2005). 

Discretion to grant leave to file a surreply is proper when a party has submitted new 

evidence with its reply brief. “[T]he district court may decline to consider new 

evidence or arguments raised in reply, and generally ‘should not consider the new 

evidence without giving the non-movant an opportunity to respond.’” Townsend v. 

Monster Beverage Corp., No. EDCV122188VAPKKX, 2018 WL 1662131, at *11 

(C.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2018) (quoting Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 

1996) and citing Deirmenjian v. Deutsche Bank, A.G., No. CV 06-00774 MMM 

(CWx), 2006 WL 4749756, at *6 n. 52 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2006)). 

Here, Plaintiffs have submitted 22 exhibits with their reply brief that were not 

included with their motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 51-2.) The Court’s 

expedited discovery order contemplated that Plaintiffs could file new evidence with 

their reply based on documents produced by Defendants. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiffs’ 

inclusion of new evidence in their reply was thus not improper. But it also provides 

a valid reason for Defendants’ request to file a surreply to respond to the new exhibits.

Plaintiffs, however, contend that the evidence submitted with their reply is not 

“new” to Defendants because Defendants produced the documents and, therefore, the 

information was available to them before they opposed Plaintiffs’ preliminary 

injunction motion. (ECF No. 53 at 3–4.) This argument is unavailing. The question 

whether evidence is new for the purpose of assessing the propriety of a surreply is 

about whether that evidence was introduced for the first time in a reply brief. See, 

Case 3:17-cv-01054-BAS-JMA Document 54 Filed 05/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
– 3 – 17cv1054

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

e.g., Hodes & Nauser, MDs, P.A. v. Moser, No. 2:11-cv-02365-CM-KMH, 2011 WL 

4553061, at *1 n.2 (D. Kan. Sept. 29, 2011) (“[T]he entirety of the surreply is 

properly before the court given the new evidence in AAPLOG’s reply brief) (citing

Green v. New Mexico, 420 F.3d 1189, 1196 (10th Cir. 2005) (indicating that a 

surreply is proper when a party presents new evidence in a reply brief)). The fact the 

party seeking to file a surreply produced the evidence in discovery does not make the 

evidence any less new for the purposes of a surreply. Cf. Provenz, 102 F.3d at 1483 

(considering response to new evidence submitted in reply in support of a motion for 

summary judgment). 

Lastly, Plaintiffs’ argument that they are entitled “to make the final argument” 

on their preliminary injunction motion and to permit otherwise would be “unfair”

misses the mark. (ECF No. 53 at 2.) The question of fairness focuses on fairness to 

the nonmoving party. While it may be true that surreplies “usually are a strategic 

effort by the nonmoving party to have the last word on a matter,” Liberty Legal 

Found. v. Nat’l Dem. Party of the USA, Inc., 875 F. Supp.2d 791, 797 (W.D. Tenn. 

2012), the inclusion of new evidence by a moving party in a reply “vitiate[s]” the 

nonmoving party’s “opportunity to effectively respond” if a court does not permit a 

surreply, tailored to addressing that new evidence. See, e.g., In re Walsh Constr. Co., 

No. 3:15-CV-648-TBR, 2018 WL 1411267, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 21, 2018). Here, 

the Court finds that it is in the interest of fairness to permit Defendants to file a 

surreply, given the 22 new exhibits. 

CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ request to file a

surreply in support of their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary 

injunction. (ECF No. 52.) Defendants may file a reply, not to exceed 10 pages, 

no later than May 15, 2018. No extensions of this deadline will be granted. 

Defendants shall limit their reply to responding to Plaintiffs’ new exhibits and 

should take care not to reiterate arguments already made in their opposition (ECF No. 

Case 3:17-cv-01054-BAS-JMA Document 54 Filed 05/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
– 4 – 17cv1054

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

32), to the extent possible. To prevent an endless pursuit of briefing, Defendants shall

not file new exhibits with their surreply, nor should they raise new legal arguments. 

Moreover, Defendants may not circumvent the Court’s prior order denying their 

previous ex parte motion to file a reply to CAIR-CA’s amicus curiae brief. (ECF 

No. 45.) The Court will disregard any arguments in Defendants’ surreply to that 

effect, including any arguments made in response to Plaintiffs’ reply to CAIR-CA’s 

amicus curiae brief.

The Court further advises both parties that no additional briefing on 

Plaintiffs’ pending motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 26) will be 

permitted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 7, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-01054-BAS-JMA Document 54 Filed 05/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4