Hall v. Google LLC

Background

Jalon R. Hall moved for permission to file a reply supporting her motion for partial summary judgment. Hall and Defendants Google LLC and Jamila Smith-Loud had stipulated to a summary-judgment briefing schedule. The stipulation stated that Hall agreed to waive her right to file a reply brief, and the Court approved the stipulation.

Defendants later filed a motion for summary judgment. Hall filed an opposition and her motion for partial summary judgment. Defendants then filed their opposition and response to the cross-motions, along with a motion to strike three declarations Hall had submitted. Nine days later, Hall sought permission to file a reply.

The Parties’ Arguments

Hall argued that Defendants’ filings included new factual and legal arguments, evidentiary objections, and requests to exclude or strike documents and declarations. She asserted that the stipulation allowed her to seek permission to reply if Defendants raised new arguments.

Defendants argued that the local rules required them to include evidentiary objections in their opposition and response. They also argued that they could not have raised objections to Hall’s later-filed motion and opposition in their opening briefs.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court found that Hall misread the stipulation. The stipulation stated that Hall agreed to waive her right to file a reply, and the Court’s order stated that she “shall not file a reply.” The Court explained that parties are bound by their stipulations, which independently resolved Hall’s request.

The Court also rejected Hall’s argument that the evidentiary objections entitled her to a reply. Defendants could not have known in advance what evidentiary issues Hall’s later filing would present. The Court stated that responding to evidentiary issues in an opponent’s filing is the natural purpose of the first-moving party’s reply opportunity, which Hall had waived. The Court further found that the cases Hall cited involved entirely new arguments made for the first time in a reply, while Defendants’ objections responded directly to Hall’s filings.

Disposition

Judge Tigar denied Hall’s motion for leave to file a reply brief. The Court stated that it would address Defendants’ separate motion to strike in a separate order.