In re Opendoor Technologies Incorporated Securities Litigation

Opinion

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

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

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Opendoor Technologies Incorporated, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Opendoor Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a 16 Sur-Reply to Plaintiffs’ Reply in Further Support of Motion for Reconsideration and 17 Memorandum of Law in Support (Doc. 94). 18 “Neither Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 nor the local rules of practice for this District provide for 19 the filing of a sur-reply, and sur-replies are not authorized by any other rules of procedure 20 absent express prior leave of the Court.” Briggs v. Montgomery, No. 21 CV-18-02684-PHX-EJM, 2019 WL 13039282, at *2 (D. Ariz. Mar. 19, 2019). Instead, 22 they are permissible “when a party raises new issues or new evidence in a reply brief.” Id. 23 (quoting ML Liquidating Trust v. Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C., No. 24 2:10-CV-02019-RRB, 2011 WL 10451619, at *1 (D. Ariz. Mar. 11, 2011)). But they are 25 “generally discouraged” and are permitted only “in the most extraordinary circumstances.” 26 ML Liquidating Trust, 2011 WL 10451619, at *1. 27 Defendants have not demonstrated the requisite “extraordinary circumstances” 28 necessary to justify a sur-reply. 1 Accordingly, 2 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 4|| of Law in Support (Doc. 94) is denied. 5 Dated this 15th day of April, 2024. 6 ’ Wichal T. Hburde 8 Michael T. Liburdi 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-