Arizona Yage Assembly, et al. v. William Barr, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: April 20, 2026
• Docket: 2:20-cv-02373
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Arizona Yage Assembly, et al., No. CV-20-02373-PHX-DJH (ASB)

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 William Barr, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 On December 9, 2025, Plaintiffs Arizona Yage Assembly and Winfield Scott 16 Stanley III (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Motion for Leave to File a Reply to 17 Defendants’ Opposition (Doc. 370). Defendants filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. 372) 18 to Plaintiffs’ Motion, and Plaintiffs then filed a Reply (Doc. 373). Previously, on 19 December 1, 2025, the parties filed a Stipulation of Defendants’ Non-Objection on 20 Timeliness Grounds to Plaintiffs’ Forthcoming Motion for Leave to File Reply (Doc. 368). 21 Plaintiffs have since filed a Motion to Deem Papers Timely Filed (Doc. 374), which also 22 relates to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Reply. Defendants did not respond to this 23 Motion. 24 In their Stipulation, the parties requested that the Court set a December 8, 2025, 25 deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for leave to file a reply brief. (Doc. 368 at 2). 26 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave was ultimately filed on December 9, 2025. (See Doc. 370). 27 Consequently, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Deem Papers Timely Filed followed. In their Motion, 28 Plaintiffs claim that their Motion was filed at 12:02 a.m. on December 9, 2025, and that 1 the untimeliness was due to counsel’s mistake while using the filing system. (Doc. 374 2 at 2). As Defendants do not dispute Plaintiffs’ request, the Court will grant both the 3 Stipulation and the Motion to Deem Papers Timely Filed. However, the Court notes that 4 Plaintiffs have struggled to meet prescribed deadlines throughout these proceedings. 5 Deadlines are taken seriously, and greater effort to submit timely filings must be made. 6 As to the Motion for Leave to File a Reply, Plaintiffs argue that a reply in support 7 of their Rule 72(a) objections is necessary because Defendants introduce new legal theories 8 and contains factual misstatements. (Doc. 370 at 3). Defendants disagree, contending that 9 their opposition only responds to the arguments raised by Plaintiff and summarizes facts 10 already on the Court’s docket. (Doc. 372 at 2). 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) allows a party to file objections to a magistrate 12 judge’s order on a nondispositive matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). It does not, however, 13 authorize filing a reply to any response. See id.; Adams v. Symetra Life Ins. Co., 2020 WL 14 6469949, *1 n.1 (D. Ariz. 2020). And, while Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(d) permits 15 replies to motions, “objections are not motions.” Veseli v. Hacker-Agnew, 2019 WL 16 1676193, *2 (D. Ariz. 2019); LRCiv. 7.2(d). Because no reply brief is considered by either 17 the Local or Federal Rules, a party seeking to file a reply must generally show good cause 18 as to why the filing should be permitted. See, e.g., Aguilar v. Shinn, 2022 WL 3921116, 19 *2 (D. Ariz. 2022) (finding that the plaintiff failed to show good cause or other legal basis 20 to warrant filing a reply to his Rule 72(b) objection). 21 Upon review, Defendants’ Response is fairly responsive to the arguments raised by 22 Plaintiffs’ objections. Moreover, the Court is able to review the record itself and need not 23 rely on either party’s characterization of it. See Joseph v. Abrams, 2015 WL 13844902, *2 24 (D. Guam 2015) (“It is unremarkable that the parties may feel that each is mischaracterizing 25 the other's arguments and trying to pull the wool over the Court’s eyes. Responses and 26 replies have to end somewhere, and under Rule 72(b) they end with each party’s response 27 to the other's objections.”). Lastly, Plaintiffs’ proposed reply, in large part, discusses the 28 parties’ discovery history and augments their arguments as to why their untimely 1 || objections should be accepted. Plaintiffs had ample opportunity to address these items in their initial filing because they should have known the pertinent parts of the record and 3 || were well aware their objections were late. Any other arguments can be decided on the basis of the objection and the response. In sum, good cause for a reply has not been || demonstrated. The Court’s ruling on Plaintiffs’ Rule 72(a) objection will follow in due 6 || course. 7 Accordingly, 8 IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulation of Defendants’ Non-Objection on 9|| Timeliness Grounds to Plaintiffs’ Forthcoming Motion for Leave to File Reply (Doc. 368) 10]) is APPROVED. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Deem Papers Timely Filed (Doc. 374) is GRANTED. 13 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Reply to Defendants’ Opposition (Doc. 370) is DENIED. 15 Dated this 20th day of April, 2026. 16 17 oC. . oe □□ □ 18 norable' Diangé4. Hunietewa 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_3-