IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY
FOR THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
HALO4ASIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
RIDGEWAY PARKS SERVICE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. RSC-CV-0750
MOTION TO DISREGARD
UNAUTHORIZED SECOND
OPPOSITION OR,
ALTERNATIVELY, FOR LEAVE
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISREGARD DEFENDANT’S UNAUTHORIZED
SECOND OPPOSITION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
SHORT RESPONSE
Plaintiff Halo4asin, appearing pro se, respectfully moves under Rid. R. Civ. P. 7.1(5) to disregard
Defendant Ridgeway Parks Service’s second “Opposition to Motion,” filed after Plaintiff had
filed the reply authorized by Rule 7.1(5). In the alternative, if the Court elects to consider
Defendant’s additional paper, Plaintiff requests leave to file the attached short response
addressing the new privilege arguments raised for the first time in that paper. Plaintiff does not
seek sanctions. The requested relief is limited to enforcing the briefing sequence and ensuring an
even opportunity to address arguments that did not appear in Defendant’s first opposition.
Conference statement. Plaintiff has not separately conferred with Defendant concerning this
procedural motion. Separate conference was not practicable before filing because the issue
concerns an additional paper filed after the Rule 7.1(5) reply, and Plaintiff seeks promptly to
preserve the briefing sequence. Defendant’s position on the underlying privilege issues is stated
in its second opposition.
I. RULE 7.1 PERMITS ONE OPPOSITION AND ONE REPLY
1. Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion for Limited Discovery, Preservation, Protective Relief,
and Leave to Supplement was opposed by Defendant. Plaintiff thereafter filed the reply
authorized by Rid R. Civ. P. 7.1(5).
2. Rule 7.1(5) provides that the movant may file a reply within twenty four hours after
service of the opposition, that the reply must be confined to matters raised in the
oppositions, and that “[n]o further paper shall be filed on the motion without leave of
court.”
3. Defendant thereafter filed a second paper styled as another “Opposition to Motion.”
Plaintiff is aware of no order granting Defendant leave to file a surreply or second
opposition before that filing. The second paper therefore falls outside the ordinary
briefing sequence established by Rule 7.1(4)-(5).
4. Plaintiff’s reply did not commence a second motion. It remained a reply in support of the
same Supplemental Motion. Its alternative request for in camera review responded to
Defendant’s reliance upon allegedly concrete but undisclosed evidence and proposed a
method for resolving any later claim of confidentiality without public disclosure. A
revised proposed order likewise did not create a new motion or reopen briefing as of
right.
II. IF THE COURT CONSIDERS THE SECOND OPPOSITION, FAIRNESS
REQUIRES A SHORT RESPONSE
5. The second opposition raises materially new legal grounds that were not presented in
Defendant’s first opposition. It invokes Rid. R. Evid. 504 and 506, asserts work product
and investigatory privileges, disputes the availability of in camera review, and relies upon
the electronic filing system’s lack of document level sealing.
6. Those issues warrant a short response because the current Rules of Evidence impose item
specific requirements and expressly provide procedures for judicial review of privilege
claims outside the electronic filing system. Plaintiff could not fully address a privilege
claim before Defendant actually asserted one.
7. The attached Proposed Short Response is limited to those new matters. It does not repeat
Plaintiff’s merits briefing and does not enlarge the underlying Supplemental Motion
beyond resolving the privilege objections Defendant has now placed before the Court.
III. THE COURT CAN RESOLVE THE PROCEDURAL ISSUE WITHOUT
DELAYING THE UNDERLYING MOTION
8. The Court may simply disregard the unauthorized second opposition and decide the
Supplemental Motion on the motion, Defendant’s first opposition, and Plaintiff’s
authorized reply. That is the primary relief requested.
9. Alternatively, the Court may grant leave and deem the attached Proposed Short Response
filed as of the date of its order. That approach avoids any additional briefing cycle and
gives the Court a complete record on the newly asserted privileges.
IV. RELIEF REQUESTED
A. Disregard Defendant’s second Opposition as an unauthorized further paper under Rid. R.
Civ. P. 7.1(5);
B. Alternatively, grant Plaintiff leave to file the attached Proposed Short Response and deem
that response filed upon entry of the Court’s order;
C. Decline to authorize any further paper concerning the Supplemental Motion absent
specific leave of Court; and
D. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully Submitted,
_________________________
Halo4asin
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Dated: September 14, 2026
