Summary
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia denied Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiffs’ reply or, alternatively, for permission to file a surreply. The Court held that the reply was not redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous and found no good cause to permit a surreply under the applicable local rule.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiffs' reply should be stricken under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) as redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.
- Whether Defendant showed good cause for permission to file a surreply under Local Rule 7.3.1.C.
Holdings
- The reply should not be stricken because it was substantively related and useful to the controversy and was not redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. Plaintiffs' new affidavit was responsive to a new affidavit filed by Defendant.
- Defendant was not permitted to file a surreply because it did not establish good cause, and surreply briefs are disfavored.
Key quotations
“Rule 12(f) is a drastic remedy to be resorted to only when required for the purposes of justice.”
“Surreply briefs are not favored.”
Factual background
Plaintiffs sought to exclude Defendant's retained expert, Brent Boyd. Defendant's response introduced a new affidavit from its expert, and Plaintiffs submitted an affidavit in reply addressing that filing. Defendant characterized the reply as introducing previously undisclosed expert opinions and sought to strike the entire reply or file a surreply.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude Defendant's retained expert Brent Boyd. After Defendant filed a response containing a new expert affidavit, Plaintiffs filed a reply accompanied by a new affidavit. Defendant moved to strike the reply under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) or obtain permission to file a surreply. The district court denied both requests.