Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01148/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01148-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7401 IRS: Tax Liability - Authorization to collect via civil action

---

Page 1 of 1

MINUTES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. FUESS Case No.: 15cv1148 BEN(RBB) 

 Time Spent:

HON. RUBEN B. BROOKS CT. DEPUTY VICKY LEE Rptr. 

Attorneys 

Plaintiffs Defendants 

 

 

PROCEEDINGS: ☐ In Chambers ☐ In Court ☐ Telephonic 

On August 31, 2016, Plaintiff filed a “Reply Brief in Support of United States’ Motion to Compel Discovery 

and Motion for Discovery Sanctions” (the “Reply”) [ECF No. 25]. There, the United States requests that the 

September 7, 2016 hearing date be vacated, or in the alternative, that Plaintiff’s counsel be permitted to appear 

telephonically at the hearing. (Reply 2, ECF No. 25.) This request is improperly raised in the Reply. See 

United States v. Boggi, 74 F.3d 470, 478 (3d Cir. 1996) (noting the general practice is not to entertain 

arguments first raised in a reply brief because it deprives the opposing party of an adequate opportunity to 

respond). But even ignoring the propriety of raising this request in the Reply, the United States has not shown 

good cause for this request. As a result, this request is DENIED. 

 

 

DATE: September 1, 2016 IT IS SO ORDERED: 

 Ruben B. Brooks, 

U.S. Magistrate Judge 

cc: Judge Benitez 

 All Parties of Record 

Case 3:15-cv-01148-BEN-RBB Document 26 Filed 09/01/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 1