Free Motion to Strike - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 56.1 kB
Pages: 2
Date: November 18, 2003
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 410 Words, 2,518 Characters
Page Size: 612.72 x 1008 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/22879/14.pdf

Download Motion to Strike - District Court of Connecticut ( 56.1 kB)


Preview Motion to Strike - District Court of Connecticut
I O O
I C
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ii L A I i i
{ DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Em gum { 8 A H: 53
EDWARD ROOT, : CIVIL NO: 3:03CV949(JCH) `
I Plenary ,"_I _1
TIMOTHY LISTON ; -
i Defendant. : NOVEMBER 17, 2003 I
i DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SRIKE PLAINTIFF’S i
\ OPPOSITION TO DEFEN])ANT’S REPLY J
Pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule l2(e), the defendant, Assistant State’s Attorney Timothy
Liston, respectfully moves to strike the plaintiffs memorandum in opposition to defenda.nt’s
reply, on the grounds that it is improper and not permitted Lmder the Federal or Local Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Indeed, neither Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Rule 9(g) pemiit
a non4moving party to file a reply brief Specifically, Local Rule 9(a)( 1) provides, in pertinent
part, that *‘[r[eply briefs are not required and the absence of a reply brief will not prejudice the i
moving party. Any reply brief . . . must be strictly confined to a discussion of the matters raised I
by the responsive brief and must contain references to the responsive brief to which reply is
i being made." Local Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 9(e). Emphasis added. Not surprisingly, the
plaintiff has not cited any rule or case law which supports his filing of a memorandum of law in K
opposition to the defendant’s reply, because there is none. Thus, not only is his memorandum
unpersuasive, it is improper and should be stricken and not considered by this Court.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant the defendant’s Motion to I
Strike the plaintiff s memorandum in oppositionto defendant-’s reply, `asit is not permitted for \
under either the Federal or Local Rules of Civil Procedure. · Y ·`



1 w . . w ,_ £>,. rr
1 Case 3:03-cv-00949-Jgteb Document 14 Filed 11/18/2003 Page 2 of 2
1
1 DEFENDANT
Timothy Liston 1
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL 1
ATTORNEY GENERAL
1 - BY: 62 . 1
I Robert B. Fiske, III
Assistant Attorney General
1 110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105 1
Federal Bar No. ct17831
Tel.: (860) 808-5450 1
Fax: (860) 808-5491 1
E-mail: [email protected] 1
- CERTIFICATION 1
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed, iirst class postage prepaid, this,
the 17th day of November, 2003, to: I
Mr. Norm Pattis, Esq.
Williams & Pattis
51 Elm Street, Suite 409
New Haven, CT 06510 L ’/gp;.
_ I
Ro ert B. Fiske, III 1
Assistant Attorney General 1
1
1
1