Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 1, 2025

EscapeX IP, LLC v. Google LLC

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:23-cv-10839
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In EscapeX IP v. Google, Judge Figueredo denied EscapeX’s motion to strike Google’s supplemental authority concerning its sanctions motion.

Who this affects

The ruling directly affected EscapeX IP, LLC’s attempt to strike Google LLC’s supplemental-authority letter; the motion to strike was denied.

What happened

In EscapeX IP, LLC v. Google LLC, Google filed a letter giving the court additional legal authority related to its pending sanctions motion. EscapeX argued that the letter was an improper additional reply.

EscapeX asked the court to strike Google’s letter. The court explained that parties in the district commonly notify courts about new, relevant legal authority after briefing is complete.

Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo denied the motion to strike and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion on the docket.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
EscapeX IP, LLC v. Google LLC · No. 1:23-cv-10839
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Apr. 1, 2025

Background

Google filed a letter on March 5, 2025, identifying supplemental legal authority that it said had become available since Google filed its motion for sanctions on March 25, 2024. EscapeX filed a motion on March 7, 2025, asking the court to strike Google’s letter. EscapeX argued that the letter was an improper sur-reply, meaning an additional filing after the regular briefing process.

Court’s Reasoning

The court stated that courts in the Southern District of New York allow parties to notify them by letter about new, relevant legal authority after briefing has ended. The court described that practice as fairly standard and cited decisions supporting it.

Ruling

Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo denied EscapeX’s motion to strike. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion listed at ECF No. 45. The order addressed the filing procedure and did not decide the underlying sanctions motion.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.