IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
September 22, 2006
MILWAUKEE INSURANCE COMPANY, FORMERLY KNOWN AS MILWAUKEE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF,
OLIN CORPORATION, STEVEN HEIENS, VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY, & MICHELLE L. KUCZKA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS INDEPENDENT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF PAUL A. KUCZKA AND AS PERSONAL FIDUCIARY FOR ALEX PAUL KUCZKA AND ALYSSA MARY KUCZKA, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, District Judge
Now before the Court is Defendant Virginia Surety Company's ("Virginia") motion for enlargement of time to amend response. (Doc. 56.) Virginia's motion requests additional time to file an amended response to a motion for summary judgment against Virginia filed by Milwaukee Insurance Company ("Milwaukee") on July 20, 2006. (Doc. 49.) On August 16, 2006, Virginia filed a response (Doc. 53) to Milwaukee's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 49). Milwaukee filed a reply to Virginia's response on August 28, 2006. (Doc. 55.) Virginia alleges in its motion for enlargement of time (Doc. 56) that Milwaukee raised new issues in its reply (Doc. 55) to Virginia's response (Doc. 53). Virginia requests an enlargement of time, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), to amend its response in order to respond to the new issues raised by Milwaukee.
The Court notes that Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(B) provides that "the court for cause shown may at any time in its discretion . . . (2) upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect." The Court, in its discretion, believes that granting an enlargement of time to file an amended response would not be appropriate in this case. The Court finds that Virginia is essentially requesting, through its motion to file an amended response, the opportunity to submit a sur-reply to Milwaukee's reply. The Court directs Virginia to Rule 7.1 of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Illinois, which provides that "[u]nder no circumstances will sur-reply briefs be accepted." The Court assures Virginia that if, in fact, Milwaukee inappropriately raised new issues in its reply (Doc. 55) that these issues will be stricken by the Court.
The Court finds that Virginia has not proffered any reason that would justify an enlargement of time to file an amended response; therefore, the Court DENIES Virginia's motion for an enlargement of time to amend response. (Doc. 56.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
David R Herndon United States District Judge
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.