Bailey v. City of Daytona Beach Shores

6:12-cv-00071 | M.D. Fla. | Jul 17, 2012

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION CHRISTINE BAILEY, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 6:12-cv-71-Orl-18TBS CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH SHORES,

Defendant. ______________________________________ ORDER This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. A review of the record reveals that Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendant’s response in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Better Responses to Interrogatories despite not being authorized to do so. (Doc. 28). In this Circuit, a reply brief may not be filed as a matter of right, rather, “the district court possesse[s] almost complete discretion to disallow the filing of a reply brief under the court's local rules.” Mock v. Bell Hellicopter Textron, Inc., No. 10-14421, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1459, at *7 (11th Cir. 2012); cf. M.D. F LA . R. 3.01(c) (“No party shall file any reply or further memorandum directed to the motion or response . . . unless the Court grants leave.”). Plaintiff has not requested and the Court has not authorized the filing of such a reply brief in this case. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s reply is STRICKEN. Should the Court require additional briefing on any specific issue, it will direct a subsequent filing on its own order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on July 17, 2012. Copies to all Counsel

2