Robinson v. De Niro
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-09156
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In Robinson v. De Niro, Judge Liman granted leave for a surreply but denied requests to strike defendants’ arguments and appendix.
Graham Chase Robinson, Robert De Niro, and Canal Productions, Inc.; the order governed the parties’ filings concerning the summary-judgment briefing.
What happened
In Robinson v. De Niro, Graham Chase Robinson asked to file a surreply responding to arguments and factual material that Robert De Niro and Canal Productions, Inc. raised in their reply supporting summary judgment. She also asked the court to strike those new arguments and defendants’ appendix.
The court granted leave to file the surreply and ordered that it be treated as filed. It denied the requests to strike defendants’ arguments about retaliation based on gender-based pay disparities and denied the request to strike the appendix. The court also directed the clerk to close the motion docket entry.
Judge Lewis J. Liman entered the April 10, 2023 order. The order allowed the parties to address arguments in the surreply at oral argument but did not decide the underlying retaliation claims.
The detailed version
- Robinson v. De Niro · No. 1:19-cv-09156
- Lewis Liman
- Apr. 10, 2023
What the motion concerned
Graham Chase Robinson moved to strike portions of Robert De Niro and Canal Productions, Inc.’s reply in support of their summary-judgment motion and sought permission to file a surreply. A surreply is an additional filing responding to arguments or material raised for the first time in a reply.
The motion papers argued that defendants had newly challenged Robinson’s retaliation claims based on her complaints about gender-based pay disparities. The papers also challenged an appendix that defendants submitted with their reply and raised alleged defects in defendants’ factual counterstatement. Those arguments appear in the plaintiff’s motion papers; the order itself ruled on the requests to file a surreply and to strike material.
The court’s ruling
The court ordered that the motion to strike and the motion for leave to file a surreply were denied in part and granted in part. It granted the request to file a surreply and ordered that the surreply be deemed filed. It denied the requests to strike defendants’ arguments concerning retaliation related to gender-based pay disparities and denied the request to strike the appendix.
The court stated that defendants could respond to arguments in the surreply at oral argument on April 20. It also directed the clerk to close docket entry 365. The order did not resolve the merits of Robinson’s underlying retaliation claims.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.