Chrivia v. Reed et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
COREY CHRIVIA,
Plaintiff,
v.
KATLIN REED, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-11174
Honorable Denise Page Hood
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
(ECF NO. 33)
Plaintiff Corey Chrivia, proceeding pro se, filed a sur-reply to
defendants’ motion for summary judgment and defendants move to strike it.
ECF No. 31; ECF No. 33. Chrivia did not respond to defendants’ motion to
strike, even though the Court ordered him to do so. ECF No. 34.
The general rule is that a non-moving party has no right to respond to
a reply brief, and thus the applicable local rule does not allow for a sur-
reply. 	Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Flowers, 513 F.3d 546, 553 (6th Cir. 2008);
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1. Because the moving party is entitled to the last word on
the matter, sur-replies are highly disfavored when the moving “party’s reply
did not raise any new legal arguments or introduce new evidence.” 	Liberty
Case 2:25-cv-11174-DPH-EAS ECF No. 36, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 1 of 3

Legal Found. v. Nat’l Democratic Party of the USA, Inc., 875 F. Supp. 2d
791, 797 (W.D. Tenn. 2012). Thus, the party wishing to file a sur-reply
must file a motion for leave that sets forth “good cause.” 	NCMIC Ins. Co. v.
Smith, 375 F. Supp. 3d 831, 835 (S.D. Ohio 2019).
Here, Chrivia has filed no motion for leave and his sur-reply does not
address any new argument raised in defendants’ reply brief. Thus, Chrivia
has not shown good cause for filing a sur-reply. As such, the Court
GRANTS defendants’ motion to strike (ECF No. 33) and ORDERS that
Chrivia’s sur-reply be STRICKEN (ECF No. 31).
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
Dated: December 4, 2025 	United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO PARTIES ABOUT OBJECTIONS
Within 14 days of being served with this order, any party may file
objections with the assigned district judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The
district judge may sustain an objection only if the order is clearly erroneous
or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636. 	“When an objection is filed to a
magistrate judge’s ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling
Case 2:25-cv-11174-DPH-EAS ECF No. 36, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 2 of 3

remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the
magistrate judge or a district judge.” 	E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that this document was served on counsel
of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to
their email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of
Electronic Filing on December 4, 2025.
s/Davon Allen
DAVON ALLEN
Case Manager
Case 2:25-cv-11174-DPH-EAS ECF No. 36, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/04/25 Page 3 of 3