Peters v. Aetna Inc. et al

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:15-cv-00109-MR
SANDRA M. PETERS, on behalf of )
herself and all others similarly )
situated, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) O R D E R
)
AETNA INC., AETNA LIFE )
INSURANCE COMPANY, and )
OPTUMHEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS, )
INC., )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion for Leave to File Sur-
Reply [Doc. 117] filed by the Defendant OptumHealth Care Solutions, Inc.
(“Optum”) and the Defendants’ Joint Motion for Leave to File under Seal
Portions of Optum’s Sur-Reply Brief to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Doc.
119].
Optum seeks leave to file a surreply in support of its response in
opposition to the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. [Doc. 117]. The Plaintiff
opposes the Defendant’s Motion.
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 125 Filed 05/16/18 Page 1 of 2

2
Nothing in the Court’s standard Pretrial Order and Case Management
Plan authorizes the filing of a surreply brief. The Local Rules provide that
such briefs “are neither anticipated nor allowed by this Rule, but leave of
Court may be sought to file a surreply when warranted.” LCvR 7.1(e).
“Generally, courts allow a party to file a surreply only when fairness dictates
based on new arguments raised in the previous reply.” DiPaulo v. Potter,
733 F. Supp. 2d 666, 670 (M.D.N.C. 2010).
The Court does not find that fairness so dictates here. The Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel has been exhaustively briefed, and the Court is more than
capable of discerning the positions of the parties from the briefs that have
already been filed.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Optum’s Motion for Leave to File
Sur-Reply [Doc. 117] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant’s Joint Motion for
Leave to File under Seal [Doc. 119] is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: May 15, 2018
Case 1:15-cv-00109-MR Document 125 Filed 05/16/18 Page 2 of 2