Taylor Porter Brooks & Phillips LLP v. English

• Court: District Court, M.D. Louisiana
• Decided: August 22, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00372
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TAYLOR PORTER BROOKS & CIVIL ACTION PHILLIPS LLP, ET AL. VERSUS LARRY ENGLISH NO. 25-00372-BAJ-SDJ

RULING AND ORDER Before the Court are Plaintiffs Taylor Porter Brooks & Phillips, LLP, Robert W. Barton, and Vicki M. Crochet’s (collectively, the “TP Plaintiffs”) Motion To Strike Reply Memorandum (Doce. 33) and Defendant’s Motion To Strike R. Doc. 32 And Opposed Motion For Leave To File A Reply To Plaintiffs [sic] Opposition To Defendants [sic] Motion To Recuse (Doc. 35). Defendant filed a Motion For Recusal, requesting recusal because of the Court’s alleged “deep-seated animosity and personal bias” against Plaintiff. (Doc. 14 at 10). TP Plaintiffs filed an Opposition. (Doc. 28). Plaintiff Leslie Edwin Miles (“Plaintiff Miles”) also filed an Opposition. (Doc. 30). Defendant filed an approximately 22-page Reply without first seeking leave to file the Reply under Local Rule 7(f) and to exceed the ten-page limit imposed by Local Rule 7(g). (Doc. 32). TP Plaintiffs have filed a Motion To Strike Defendant’s Reply Memorandum, arguing that Defendant violated Local Rule 7(g) by filing a reply that exceeds the ten- page limit without first seeking leave of Court. (Doc. 38 at 1). TP Plaintiffs also contend that Defendant’s Reply “merely copies meritless arguments already made in

the original supporting memorandum and there is no need for 25 pages of repetition.” In response, Defendant requests that the Court strike his Reply and allow him to instead file a ten-page Reply. (Doc. 35-2). Defendant notes that TP Plaintiffs do not oppose his Motion to strike and file a ten-page reply, but that he did not hear back from Plaintiff Miles before filing his Motion. (Doc. 35 at 1). Defendant therefore considers his Motion opposed “out of an abundance of caution.” (Id.). Local Rule 7() requires litigants to obtain leave of Court to file reply memoranda for all motions that are not Rule 12 or Rule 56 motions, including motions to recuse. See M.D. La. Local Rule 7(f). Additionally, Local Rule 7(g) mandates that litigants must obtain leave of Court to submit reply memoranda that exceed ten pages. See M.D. La. Local Rule 7(g); Weil v. Neary, 278 U.S. 160, 169 (1929) (holding that a properly adopted local rule “has the force of law’). Because Defendant did not seek leave of Court to file his Reply and to exceed the page limit imposed by the Local Rules, the Court will grant TP Plaintiffs’ Motion To Strike Reply Memorandum (Doc. 33) and Defendant’s Motion To Strike R. Doc. 32 (Doc. 35). Defendant’s Motion For Recusal (Doc. 14), TP Plaintiffs’ Opposition (Doc. 28), and Plaintiff Miles’ Opposition (Doc. 30) sufficiently outline the legal issues pertaining to Defendant’s Motion For Recusal. The Court will therefore deny Defendant’s Opposed Motion For Leave To File A Reply To Plaintiffs [sic] Opposition To Defendants [sic] Motion To Recuse (Doc. 35).

Accordingly, . IT IS ORDERED that TP Plaintiffs’ Motion To Strike Reply Memorandum (Doc. 33) and Defendant’s Motion To Strike R. Doc. 32 (Doc. 35) be and are hereby GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s pleading located at Doc. 32 shall be STRICKEN from the record. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Opposed Motion For Leave To File A Reply To Plaintiffs [sic] Opposition To Defendants [sic] Motion To Recuse (Doc. 35) be and is hereby DENIED. ) —— Baton Rouge, Louisiana, thi day of August, 2025

JUDGE BRIAN A. JACKSON UNITED STATES TRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA