Eggum v. Holbrook

W.D. Washington

Eggum v. Holbrook

DecidedAugust 29, 2019

Docket2:14-cv-01328

StatusUnknown

This text of Eggum v. Holbrook (Eggum v. Holbrook) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eggum v. Holbrook, (W.D. Wash. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 MARLOW TODD EGGUM, 9 Petitioner, Case No. C14-1328-RAJ-MAT 10 v. ORDER ON MOTION TO FILE SURREPLY AND MOTION TO 11 JERI BOE, STRIKE 12 Respondent. 13 14 Respondent moves the Court to accept a surreply to petitioner’s motion to expand the 15 record (Dkt. 131), and petitioner moves to strike respondent’s motion (Dkt. 132). Surreplies are 16 improper under Local Civil Rule 7(g) unless they are limited to addressing a request to strike 17 material contained in or attached to a reply brief. Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(g); see Echlin 18 v.Dynamic Collectors, Inc., 102 F. Supp. 3d 1179, 1181 n.1 (W.D. Wash. 2015) (granting motion 19 to strike improperly filed surreply); Annelise Farnes v. Metro. Group Property & Casualty Ins. 20 Co., No. 18-1883, 2019 WL 4044102, at *1 (W.D. Wash. July 31, 2019) (denying request to file 21 surreply that did not comply with LCR 7(g)). Respondent’s surreply does not comport with LCR 22 7(g), and therefore her motion to accept a surreply (Dkt. 131) is DENIED, and petitioner’s motion 23 1 to strike (Dkt. 132) is DENIED as moot. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to 2 the parties and to the Honorable Richard A. Jones. 3 Dated this 29th day of August, 2019. 4 A

5 Mary Alice Theiler 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 MARLOW TODD EGGUM, 9 Petitioner, Case No. C14-1328-RAJ-MAT 10 v. ORDER ON MOTION TO FILE SURREPLY AND MOTION TO 11 JERI BOE, STRIKE 12 Respondent. 13 14 Respondent moves the Court to accept a surreply to petitioner’s motion to expand the 15 record (Dkt. 131), and petitioner moves to strike respondent’s motion (Dkt. 132). Surreplies are 16 improper under Local Civil Rule 7(g) unless they are limited to addressing a request to strike 17 material contained in or attached to a reply brief. Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(g); see Echlin 18 v.Dynamic Collectors, Inc., 102 F. Supp. 3d 1179, 1181 n.1 (W.D. Wash. 2015) (granting motion 19 to strike improperly filed surreply); Annelise Farnes v. Metro. Group Property & Casualty Ins. 20 Co., No. 18-1883, 2019 WL 4044102, at *1 (W.D. Wash. July 31, 2019) (denying request to file 21 surreply that did not comply with LCR 7(g)). Respondent’s surreply does not comport with LCR 22 7(g), and therefore her motion to accept a surreply (Dkt. 131) is DENIED, and petitioner’s motion 23 1 to strike (Dkt. 132) is DENIED as moot. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to 2 the parties and to the Honorable Richard A. Jones. 3 Dated this 29th day of August, 2019. 4 A

5 Mary Alice Theiler 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Eggum v. Holbrook, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eggum-v-holbrook-wawd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack