United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
October 20, 2014
LIGHTSPEED MEDIA CORP., Plaintiff,
ANTHONY SMITH, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge.
This case is before the Court on Paul Hansmeier's ("Hansmeier"), motion to strike reply brief and accompanying exhibits (Doc. 173) and renewed motion to strike reply brief and accompanying exhibits (Doc. 175). Both motions ask the Court to strike defendant Anthony Smith's ("Smith") reply in support of his motion for discovery sanctions (Doc. 172) and the associated exhibits.
Initially, Hansmeier objected to the propriety of filing the reply brief ex parte. However, on May 19, 2014, the Court modified the restriction level of the reply brief (Doc. 173). The reply brief is now available to both parties but sealed from the public (Doc. 173). Accordingly, any argument pertaining to the reply brief being filed ex parte is now moot.
The renewed motion to strike alleges Smith's reply is "procedurally false" (Doc. 175 p. 1); "substantively false" (Doc. 175 p. 3); and a "major ethical violation" (Doc. 175 p. at 4). These arguments fail to establish grounds for striking under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. Further, as noted by Smith, the renewed motion does not set forth a standard of review, case citations or legal arguments in support thereof. The lack of authority or legal argument forfeits any issues asserted by Hansmeier. See Doe, By and Through G.S. v. Johnson, 52 F.3d 1448, 1457 (7th Cir. 1995).
Finally, the Court notes that pursuant to the Court's Local Rules, "[r]eply briefs are not favored and should be filed in only exceptional circumstances." S.D. Ill. L.R. 7(c) (bold in original). The Court finds that exceptional circumstances are present here. Therefore the Court will consider the reply brief.
For the reasons discussed above, Hansmeier's motion to strike reply brief and accompanying exhibits (Doc. 173) and renewed motion to strike reply brief and accompanying exhibits (Doc. 175) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.