Opinion ID: 167100
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adequacy of process leading to summary judgment

Text: 24 Pippin asserts that the district court erred by permitting Burlington to attach several new exhibits to its summary judgment reply brief but did not offer Pippin an additional opportunity to respond to that material. 5 Whether a non-moving party has had an opportunity to respond to a moving party's reply brief at the summary judgment stage is a supervision of litigation question that we review for abuse of discretion. Beaird v. Seagate Tech., Inc., 145 F.3d 1159, 1164-65 (10th Cir.1998). Pippin raised this issue in a Rule 59 motion before the district court, the denial of which we also review for abuse of discretion. Adams v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 1179, 1186 n. 5 (10th Cir.2000). 25 We find no abuse of discretion in this case. The district court correctly pointed out that approximately a month and a half passed between Burlington filing its reply and the district court's decision. Pippin had plenty of opportunity to seek leave of the court to file a surreply but never attempted to do so. 26 Our case law requires only that if the court relies on new materials or new arguments in a reply brief, it may not forbid the nonmovant from responding to these new materials. Beaird, 145 F.3d at 1165; accord Doebele v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 342 F.3d 1117, 1139 n. 13 (10th Cir.2003). Or, if the district court does preclude a surreply, then the court can avoid error only by not relying on the new materials and arguments in the movant's reply brief. Beaird, 145 F.3d at 1164. 27 Pippin reads our precedent too broadly to the extent he asserts  Beaird is violated if the trial court considers new matters at all. 6 Here, the district court did not preclude a surreply. Pippin had more than enough time to request time to file a surreply, but did not. Absent such a motion, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it decided this case approximately a month and a half after receiving Burlington's reply. 7 28