Aguilar v. Noem et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Junior J. Aguilar,
Plaintiff,
v.
Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland
Security, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-00056-TUC-EJM
ORDER
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Short Sur-Reply
(≤ 5 Pages) Limited to New Matters Raised in the Defendants’ Reply (Doc. 28) (“Motion
for Surreply”) (Doc. 30) and Request for Judicial Notice in Support of [Lodged] Sur-Reply
(Doc. 32). Defendants filed a combined response in opposition to both motions and
Plaintiff did not reply. See Defs.’ Combined Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s motion
for Leave to File Sur-Reply and Related Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Sur-
Reply (Doc. 36). The Court will deny both motions.
A. Motion for Surreply
Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Local Rules of this District
contemplate the filing of a surreply. A surreply may be warranted when new evidence is
presented in a reply. JG v. Douglas County School Dist., 552 F.3d 786, 803 n.14 (9th Cir.
2008) (citations omitted). Generally, however, “[s]urreplies . . . are highly disfavored, as
they usually are a strategic effort by the nonmoving party to have the last word on a matter.”
Case 4:25-cv-00056-JCH-EJM Document 39 Filed 10/30/25 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Sims v. Paramount Gold and Silver Corp., No. CV-10-356-PHX-MHM, 2010 WL
5364783, at *8 (D. Ariz. Dec. 21, 2010) (second alteration in original) (citations omitted).
“Accordingly, courts will not allow surreplies except in the most extraordinary
circumstances.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted) (collecting cases). The
issues Plaintiff seeks to address in his surreply are not new evidence, rather they were
responsive to Plaintiff’s arguments against Defendant’s motion to dismiss. As such,
“Plaintiff has failed to point to any extraordinary circumstances that justify his request, and
this Court sees none.” Sims, 2010 WL 5364783, at *8. Plaintiff’s motion for surreply
(Doc. 30) is denied.
B. Motion for Judicial Notice
Plaintiff also seeks judicial notice of documents that he submits in support of his
proposed surreply. Pl.’s Mot. for Judicial Notice in Support of [Lodged] Sur-Reply (Doc.
32) (“The text is pertinent to the Court’s consideration of procedures referenced in
Plaintiff’s [lodged] sur-reply.”). Because the Court has denied Plaintiff leave to file a sur-
reply, the documents proffered are unnecessary. As such, Plaintiff’s motion for judicial
notice (Doc. 32) is denied.
C. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave
to File a Short Sur-Reply (≤ 5 Pages) Limited to New Matters Raised in the Defendants’
Reply (Doc. 30) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of
[Lodged] Sur-Reply (Doc. 32) is DENIED.
Dated this 30th day of October, 2025.
Case 4:25-cv-00056-JCH-EJM Document 39 Filed 10/30/25 Page 2 of 2