Tyler v. Valley MRI and Radiology, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 | Richard and Arretta Tyler, No. 2:19-cv-0065 1-KJM-AC 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER 12 v. 13 Valley MRI and Radiology, Inc., et al., 4 Defendants. 15 16 The matter is before the court on the defense motion to strike the plaintiffs’ reply brief in 17 | support of their motion for partial summary judgment or, in the alternative, for leave to file a 18 | surreply. ECF No. 42. The plaintiffs do not oppose the alternative request for leave to file a 19 | surreply to address evidence cited and arguments advanced for the first time in reply. ECF 20 | No. 44. The court grants that alternative relief for good cause shown. Amalgamated Transit 21 | Union, Int’l v. United States Dep’t of Lab., No. 20-00953, 2021 WL 2003104, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 22 | May 19, 2021) (granting an unopposed motion to file a sur-reply to address purportedly new 23 | evidence). Within twenty-one days, defendants may file a surreply brief no longer than five 24 | pages to address any evidence cited or arguments raised for the first time in reply. 25 This order resolves ECF No. 42. 27 DATED: June 8, 2021. 28 aiull CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE