Gilley et al v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. et al, No. 1:2018cv00536 - Document 284 (S.D.W. Va. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part C. H. Robinson's 281 motion to strike plaintiffs' reply briefs or for permission to file its own reply briefs. The court will not strike plaintiffs' reply briefs, but Robinson may file its own reply briefs on or before 7/23/2021. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 7/16/2021. (cc: counsel of record) (arb)

Download PDF
Gilley et al v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. et al Doc. 284 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD Clinton Eugene Gilley, as Administrator of the Estate of CARL DAVID GILLEY, Nicole Leigh Le, as Administrator of the Estate of CHRISTINE TARA WARDEN GILLEY, and Clinton Eugene Gilley and Nicole Leigh Le as Co-Administrators of the Estates of J.G. and G.G., minor children, Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-00536 C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC., J&TS TRANSPORT EXPRESS, INC., and BERTRAM COPELAND, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the court is defendant C.H. Robinson’s motion to strike plaintiffs’ reply briefs or for permission to file its own reply briefs. (ECF No. 281.) Robinson argues that because the court’s amended scheduling order specified dates for motions in limine and opposition thereto but did not specify a date for reply briefs, reply briefs are not permissible under the scheduling order. Plaintiffs contend that, notwithstanding the silence of the scheduling order, their reply briefs are permissible under this court’s local rules. 7.1(a)(7). See LR Civ. P. Plaintiffs propose that Robinson be given leave to file its own reply briefs; alternatively, plaintiffs offer to Dockets.Justia.com withdraw their reply briefs. The court will adopt the first proposal and allow Robinson to file its own reply briefs within seven days of this order. The question is basically whether the silence of the scheduling order implicitly prohibits or implicitly allows reply briefs. Both positions are eminently reasonable. Accordingly, fundamental fairness requires either striking the replies or allowing Robinson to file its own. Robinson suggests that judicial economy favors striking the replies. While Robinson may be correct, it is just as likely that the replies will help narrow the issues. The docket entries are numerous in this matter, but both sides have skilled counsel whose briefs the court has found helpful in resolving the issues raised in this case thus far. The court, therefore, welcomes the opportunity to review Robinson’s reply briefs in resolving the motions in limine. Accordingly, Robinson’s motion to strike (ECF No. 281) is GRANTED in part. The court will not strike plaintiffs’ reply briefs, but Robinson may file its own reply briefs on or before July 23, 2021. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record. IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of July, 2021. 2 ENTER: David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.