Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Coffman Specialties, Inc., et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE Case No. 25-cv-00619-BAS-JLB ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE v. SUR-REPLY (ECF No. 57)

COFFMAN SPECIALTIES, INC., et al., Defendants.

Before the Court is Defendants’ CTDM CO., LLC, Colleen T. Coffman, James A. Coffman, Coffman Family Trust Dated 9/22/08, Coffman Specialties, Inc., DLTCM, LLC, DT Trucking, LLC, LDTCM, LLC, Scripps Park West, LLC, Sky Trek, LLC ex parte motion for leave to file sur-reply. (ECF No. 57.) A decision to grant or deny leave to file a surreply is generally committed to the “sound discretion” of the court. See Brady v. Grendene USA, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-0604-GPC- KSC, 2015 WL 6828400, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2015); United States v. Venture One Mortg. Corp., No: 13-CV-1872 W (JLB), 2015 WL 12532139, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2015). Such discretion “should be exercised in favor of allowing a surreply only where a valid reason for such additional briefing exists, such as where the movant raises new arguments in its reply brief.” Hill v. England, No. CVFO5869RECTAG, 2005 WL } 3031136, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2005). A court may also permit a surreply “in the interest of fairness” even where the “reply brief [is] largely responsive to issues raised by [the opposing part] in its opposition” brief. Sherman v. Yahoo! Inc., No. 13CV0041-GPC- WVG, 2015 WL 5604400, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2015) (permitting defendant to file surreply despite plaintiff's characterizations that arguments in the reply were not new). Here, Defendants move to file a sur-reply so that the Court may consider the fact that Defendants have now obtained a supersedeas bond, which Defendants relied upon the prospect of in their opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 57.) Though Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance Company contends that this newly discovered evidence does not meaningfully enhance the arguments raised in Defendants’ opposition (ECF No. 58), the Court exercises its discretion to grant leave in the interest of fairness. Having considered the motion, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ ex parte request to file a surreply. (ECF No. 57.) Defendants may file a surreply of not more than fifteen pages no later than May 13, 2026. Defendants are advised not to use this surreply to retread arguments already addressed in its opposition to the motion for partial summary judgment. (ECF No. 43.) The Court will disregard any such arguments. DATED: May 6, 2026 (yatta Bahar te H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court ~_9_