Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00038/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00038-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Declaratory Judgment

---

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

Associated Indemnity Corporation, a

corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, a

corporation,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV09-0038 PHX DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff Associated Indemnity Corporation has moved to strike Defendant Hartford

Casualty Insurance Company’s reply brief. Dkt. #43. The Court will deny the motion.

 Plaintiff’s motion is based on two grounds: (1) Defendant’s reply was untimely, and

(2) Defendant’s reply is actually an unauthorized surreply. Dkt. #43 at 1.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s reply was due on or before September 22, 2009, but

that Defendant filed its reply two days late. Id. at 2. Plaintiff has not shown, and the Court

does not otherwise find, that Plaintiff has been unduly prejudiced by the two-day delay.

Moreover, Plaintiff has cited no rule that would require the reply to be stricken from the

record, as is required by Local Rule 7.2(m).

Plaintiff also asserts that Defendant’s reply should be stricken because it is an

unauthorized surreply. Plaintiff asserts that the reply addresses arguments raised in

Plaintiff’s reply to another motion rather than countering arguments in Plaintiff’s response.

Again, Plaintiff has cited no rule that would require the reply to be stricken from the record.

Case 2:09-cv-00038-DGC Document 44 Filed 10/07/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

See Local Rule 7.2(m). The Court will determine what weight to give Defendant’s reply

when it considers the underlying motion for summary judgment. If the Court determines

further briefing is required of Plaintiff, the Court will request it.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to strike (Dkt. #43) is denied.

DATED this 7th day of October, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00038-DGC Document 44 Filed 10/07/09 Page 2 of 2