Opinion ID: 2974224
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The computer demonstration and reply brief

Text: LawMode’s two final arguments pertaining to the district court’s discretionary decision to strike a reply brief and not to permit a computer demonstration are without merit because the district court did not abuse its discretion. The district court reasonably concluded that a computer demonstration was not necessary considering the pleadings, affidavits, and screen shots in evidence. LawMode did not seek leave to file a supplemental/reply brief. The district court does not have to accept every filing submitted by a party. Jones v. Northcoast Behavioral Healthcare Sys., 84 Fed. App. 597, 599 (6th Cir. Dec. 12, 2003). There was no prejudice to LawMode and it was not an abuse of discretion to strike the “supplemental” brief. 4 Lexis offered the following example to the district court, “If Billy and Mary agree that Billy will own the drawing of a tree that they’re about to do on a piece of paper, they have not agreed that Mary cannot thereafter take her own piece of blank paper and draw another tree.” We agree, but add that if Billy sues Mary alleging that Mary has taken the contractually protected drawing of a tree and is selling copies of the drawing in violation of their agreement, Billy has stated a claim for breach of contract for which relief may be granted. No. 05-1513 Ross Brovins & Oehmke v. Lexis Nexis Group Page 10