1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDON IMBER, Case No. 1:22-cv-00004-DAD-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO FILE SURREPLY

13 v. (Doc. No. 64) 14 BRUCE LACKEY; PAM LACKEY;

LACKEY FAMILY TRUST; COLE

15 SCHARTON; THE ADMINISTRATIVE

COMMITTEE OF THE PEOPLE

16 BUSINESS EMPLOYEE STOCK

OWNERSHIP PLAN; MIGUEL

17 PAREDES; RICH ROUSH; DEL

THACKER; RICHARD DEYOUNG;

18 RITCHIE TRUCKING SERVICE

HOLDINGS, INC.; PEOPLE BUSINESS

19 EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP

PLAN;

20 Defendants. 21 22 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Brandon Imber’s motion for leave to file a surreply 23 filed on May 16, 2022. (Doc. No. 64). Imber seeks leave to file a surreply to address new 24 arguments Roush, Thacker, and DeYoung raised for the first time in their reply concerning who 25 served as members of the board of directors of Ritchie Trucking Service Holdings, Inc. and to 26 address the arguments that Plaintiff had “actual knowledge ‘who were the directors before and 27 during the 2018 Transaction and who joined the Board for the first time in August of 2019,’” 28 along with opposition to Rule 11 argument raised by these defendants. (Id. at 3-4). Imber 1 | confirms the surreply will be no more than 4 pages. (/d. at 4). The Court grants the motion. 2 Parties do not have the right to file a surreply and motions are deemed submitted when the 3 | time to reply has expired. Local Rule 230()(E.D. Cal. 2022). Courts generally views motions for 4 | leave to file a surreply with disfavor. Hill v. England, No. CVF05869 REC TAG, 2005 WL 5 | 3031136, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2005) (citing Fedrick v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 366 F.Supp.2d 6 | 1190, 1197 (N.D. Ga. 2005)). However, whether to permit or preclude a surreply lies with the 7 | court’s discretion. See U.S. ex rel. Meyer v. Horizon Health Corp., 565 F.3d 1195, 1203 (9th Cir. 8 | 2009)(district court did not abuse discretion in refusing to permit “inequitable surreply”); JG v. 9 | Douglas County School Dist., 552 F.3d 786, 803 n.14 (9th Cir. 2008) (district court did not abuse 10 | discretion in denying leave to file surreply where it did not consider new evidence in reply); 11 | Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996)(new evidence in reply may not be 12 | considered without giving the non-movant an opportunity to respond). Based upon Imber’s 13 | representation that the surreply will address only the new arguments raised in the reply and be 14 | limited to four pages, the Court will exercise its discretion and permit Imber to file a surreply. 15 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 16 Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a surreply (Doc. No. 64) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall 17 | file the surreply limited to four pages within fourteen (14) days of the date on this order. 18 | Dated: _ August 23, 2022 Mile. Wh fareh Zaskth 20 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26 27 28