Opinion ID: 223616
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Refusal to Permit Surreply on Summary Judgment

Text: Finally, Mr. Locke contends that the district court committed reversible error in denying his request to file a surreply on summary judgment. He avers that he was entitled to file one because defendant’s reply added evidentiary materials and legal arguments, and the district court’s summary judgment does not indicate whether the court considered these additional materials and arguments. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision not to permit a surreply. Green v. New Mexico, 420 F.3d 1189, 1198 (10th Cir. 2005). 6 “Burk provides a tort remedy only for an employee’s actual or constructive discharge.” Medlock, 608 F.3d at 1198 n.10. Mr. Locke’s demotion claim appears not to be actionable under Burk. See id. (citing Davis v. Bd. of Regents for Okla. State Univ., 25 P.3d 308, 310 (Okla. Civ. App. 2001)). -15- Generally, the nonmoving party should be given an opportunity to respond to new material raised for the first time in the movant’s reply. If the district court does not rely on the new material in reaching its decision, however, it does not abuse its discretion by precluding a surreply. “Material,” for purposes of this framework, includes both new evidence and new legal arguments. Id. (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Locke argues that the reply contained new evidence and arguments, but he has made little effort to demonstrate which evidence and arguments were new, or to show that the district court relied on them. To support this argument, he has cited to his district-court motion for leave to file a surreply. 7 Not surprisingly, defendant argues that its district-court opposition to the surreply demonstrated that no new evidence or arguments were presented in the reply. We decline to sift through the district court file to ascertain whether the reply included new material. See Roska ex rel. Roska v. Peterson, 328 F.3d 1230, 1246 n.13 (10th Cir. 2003) (declining to search the record for evidence). Mr. Locke has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion. 7 In his reply brief, Mr. Locke points to one allegedly new argument raised in defendant’s reply: “failure to follow policies does not support pretext.” Aplt. Reply Br. at 19. But Mr. Locke argued in his opposition to summary judgment that Sheriff Kell’s failure to follow the departmental policy was evidence of pretext. Aplt. App. Vol. III at 500-501. Thus, Mr. Locke has not shown that defendant raised new material in its reply. Moreover, we have considered and rejected his arguments based on asserted conflicting legal precedents. -16-