Opinion ID: 212079
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Violation of Fed. R.App. P. 28(c)

Text: 6 Before turning to the merits of this case, we address a procedural matter. Under Fed. R.App. P. 28, the appellant is allowed an opening brief, the appellee is allowed a brief in response, and the appellant is allowed a reply brief. An appellee who has cross-appealed may file a brief in reply to the appellant's response to the issues presented by the cross-appeal. Fed. R.App. P. at 28(c). The practice notes to Rule 28 in the Federal Circuit's Rules of Practice further state that counsel are cautioned, in cases involving a proper cross-appeal, to limit the fourth brief to the issues presented by the cross-appeal. 7 In this case, the reply brief Princess filed as cross-appellant was not limited to issues concerning the cross-appeal. Indeed, the majority of Princess's reply brief addressed the government's appeal. After we raised Princess's failure to comply with Rule 28(c) during oral argument, Princess filed an unopposed motion to strike the offending portions of its reply brief, which we granted. We appreciate Princess's efforts to correct the problem it created, albeit belatedly. 8 We note a troubling trend for the counsel of cross-appellants to disregard the rule limiting their reply brief to issues concerning the cross-appeal. See, e.g., In re Violation of Rule 28(c), 388 F.3d 1383 (Fed.Cir.2004). 1 The filing of improper sur-reply arguments is unfair to appellants who bear the burden of demonstrating prejudicial error in the decision being appealed and, therefore, are entitled to the last word in both the briefs and at oral argument on their appeal. 9 We caution all counsel for cross-appellants who file improper sur-reply arguments that they may be subject to sanctions under Fed. R.App. P. 46(c), which provides that [a] court of appeals may discipline an attorney who practices before it ... for failure to comply with any court rule. We further urge counsel for appellants to file timely motions to strike improper sur-reply arguments because the prejudice from improper sur-reply arguments is difficult to eliminate once such arguments have been read by the court.