D3 International Inc. v. AGGF Cosmetic Group S.p.A.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:21-cv-06409
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In D3 International Inc. v. AGGF Cosmetic Group S.p.A., Judge Liman denied D3’s request to file a sur-reply in pending summary-judgment proceedings.
D3 International Inc.’s request to file an additional response was denied; the order also addressed briefing by AGGF Cosmetic Group S.p.A. and Cosmetica, S.R.L. on their pending summary-judgment motion.
What happened
D3 International Inc. asked to file a sur-reply, which is an additional response after the usual briefing, in response to arguments by AGGF Cosmetic Group S.p.A. and Cosmetica, S.R.L. The request concerned D3’s failure to submit a required statement of disputed facts and arguments about the deposition of D3’s representative, Natale Palazzolo.
D3 had not opposed the defendants’ summary-judgment motion within the required 14 days. After the court said it would treat the motion as unopposed, D3 submitted late papers but did not file a legal brief or the required statement of disputed facts. The court noted that D3 could have requested permission to file those materials late or addressed the deposition in a timely opposition.
Judge Liman denied D3’s request. He concluded that D3 had had opportunities to present these arguments before and would not be allowed to raise them in a sur-reply. This order did not decide the defendants’ summary-judgment motion.
The detailed version
- D3 International Inc. v. AGGF Cosmetic Group S.p.A. · No. 1:21-cv-06409
- Lewis Liman
- June 9, 2022
Background
D3 International Inc. requested permission to file a sur-reply in opposition to the summary-judgment motion filed by AGGF Cosmetic Group S.p.A. and Cosmetica, S.R.L. A sur-reply is an additional filing responding to arguments raised in a reply or later stage of motion briefing. D3 said it needed the filing to address the defendants’ argument that their statements should be treated as admitted because D3 had not submitted a required Local Civil Rule 56.1 statement, and to respond to arguments concerning the deposition of D3’s representative, Natale Palazzolo.
Procedural history
D3 initially failed to oppose the defendants’ summary-judgment motion by the 14-day deadline under Local Civil Rule 6.1(b), which was May 20, 2022. On May 31, 2022, the court entered an order stating that it would treat the motion as unopposed. D3 then filed untimely opposition materials consisting of two letters, an unsigned declaration from Natale Palazzolo, and a certificate of service. D3 also asked for additional time to obtain a signed declaration.
D3 did not file a memorandum of law opposing summary judgment or a Local Civil Rule 56.1 statement. The court observed that D3 could have filed the Rule 56.1 statement with its opposition papers, requested permission to file it late, or addressed the deposition issue in a memorandum of law. The defendants opposed D3’s request to file a sur-reply.
Ruling
Judge Liman held that the reasons offered by D3 did not justify allowing a sur-reply. The court concluded that D3 had had sufficient opportunities to present its arguments before the request for a sur-reply and declined to exercise its discretion to allow the additional filing. The court therefore denied D3’s motion. The opinion does not state a ruling on the underlying summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.