Opinion
17cv121 JO-MSB
07-01-2022
IN RE QUALCOMM INCORPORATED SECURITIES LITIGATION
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR SUR-REPLY
HON. JINSOOK OHTA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Defendants Qualcomm Incorporated, Derek A. Aberle, Steven R. Altman, William F. Davidson, Paul E. Jacobs, Steven M. Mollenkopf, and Donald J. Rosenberg (collectively, “Defendants”) have requested to file a sur-reply in opposition to any arguments Lead Plaintiffs may raise on the issue of price impact in their reply in support of their motion for class certification. Dkt. 229. Defendants have also requested to move the hearing date from September 14, 2022, to the next available date after September 21, 2022.
For the reasons described below, Defendants' request to file a sur-reply is denied without prejudice. Permitting the filing of a sur-reply is within the discretion of the district court. Nat'l Cas. Co. v. Nat'l Strength & Conditioning Ass'n, 2020 WL 2991508, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). “A district court may allow a surreply to be filed, but only where a valid reason for such additional briefing exists, such as where the movant raises new arguments in its reply brief.” Daniels v. ComUnity Lending, Inc., 2015 WL 2338713, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 12,2015), aff'd, 621 Fed.Appx. 427 (9th Cir. 2015). Here, Lead Plaintiffs have yet to file a reply brief, and therefore the proposed sur-reply is premature. Defendants may renew their request for a sur-reply after the parties have submitted the scheduled briefing on class certification. The Court therefore DENIES the motion [Dkt. 229].
IT IS SO ORDERED.