In re Opendoor Technologies Incorporated Securities Litigation

Opinion

WO

Sam Alich, No. CV-22-01717-PHX-MTL

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

Opendoor Technologies Incorporated, et al.,

Defendants. Pending before the Court is Opendoor Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply to Plaintiffs’ Reply in Further Support of Motion for Reconsideration and Memorandum of Law in Support (Doc. 94). “Neither Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 nor the local rules of practice for this District provide for the filing of a sur-reply, and sur-replies are not authorized by any other rules of procedure absent express prior leave of the Court.” Briggs v. Montgomery, No. CV-18-02684-PHX-EJM, 2019 WL 13039282, at *2 (D. Ariz. Mar. 19, 2019). Instead, they are permissible “when a party raises new issues or new evidence in a reply brief.” Id. (quoting ML Liquidating Trust v. Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C., No. 2:10-CV-02019-RRB, 2011 WL 10451619, at *1 (D. Ariz. Mar. 11, 2011)). But they are “generally discouraged” and are permitted only “in the most extraordinary circumstances.” ML Liquidating Trust, 2011 WL 10451619, at *1. Defendants have not demonstrated the requisite “extraordinary circumstances” necessary to justify a sur-reply. 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Opendoor Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply to Plaintiffs’ Reply in Further Support of Motion for Reconsideration and Memorandum of Law in Support (Doc. 94) is denied. Dated this 15th day of April, 2024. ’ Wichal T. Hburde Michael T. Liburdi United States District Judge

_2-