Here We Go Again With Larding Improper Argument Into Notices of Supplemental Authority!

And nobody is better able to get into the weeds and muck around on this issue than Magistrate Judge Goodman:
Three pages of quotations and Plaintiff’s gloss as to the meaning of this case does not constitute an appropriate “Notice.” Because Plaintiffs’ Notice contains legal argument, it is, for all intents and purposes, more akin to an unauthorized surreply. Consequently, because Plaintiffs’ Notice contains a surfeit of legal arguments, this part of the Notice must be stricken.
Why do lawyers do this?

I can possibly see a mild exception where it is necessary to provide context and help explain why the new case supports a point that would not be otherwise obvious to the Court.

But if that's the case maybe the new authority isn't that great, or your point not very persuasive -- it should pretty much stand on its own.

Either way -- resist the temptation.


  1. RE: "resist the temptation."

    Tsk, tsk, tsk. I think Oscar Wilde said it best--

    "The only way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it"

    Happy Friday, SFL.

  2. really? nothing about this???

  3. Is it possible to give all potential judicial candidates the Narcissistic Personality Inventory?


Post a Comment