IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIDGEWAY
FOR THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
HALO4ASIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
RIDGEWAY PARKS SERVICE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. RSC-CV-0750
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
DISREGARD UNAUTHORIZED
SECOND OPPOSITION
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISREGARD
UNAUTHORIZED SECOND OPPOSITION OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR LEAVE
Plaintiff Halo4asin, appearing pro se, respectfully replies to Defendant Ridgeway Parks Service’s
September 21, 2026 Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Disregard Unauthorized Second
Opposition. Defendant’s latest paper does not answer the procedural defect. It confirms only that
Defendant believed further briefing was desirable. Rid. R. Civ. P. 7.1(5), however, requires leave
of court before any further paper is filed after the movant’s reply. Defendant identifies no request
for leave and no order granting it before the second opposition was filed.
I. RULE 7.1(5) REQUIRES LEAVE BEFORE FURTHER BRIEFING
1. Rule 7.1(5) provides that, after the movant’s reply, “No further paper shall be filed on the
motion without leave of court.” Plaintiff does not dispute that this Court possesses
authority to permit additional briefing. The point is that the Rule makes permission from
the Court a prerequisite to filing, not an entitlement that a party may exercise unilaterally.
2. Defendant argues that its second opposition was “necessitated” by matters raised in
Plaintiff’s reply and that Defendant was therefore “entitled” to address them. Def.’s Opp.
to Mot. to Disregard at 1-2. Even accepting Defendant’s characterization of the reply for
purposes of this procedural motion, the prescribed course was simple: request leave,
identify the allegedly new issue, and allow the Court to decide whether another paper was
warranted. Defendant did not do that.
3. The Court’s discretion to manage its docket belong to the Court. It cannot be converted
into advance permission by a party’s own conclusion that another filing is necessary.
Whether a reply raises an issue warranting a surreply is a question for the Court upon a
request for leave. It is not a unilateral exception to the express filing restriction in Rule
7.1(5).
4. Accordingly, the second opposition was unauthorized when filed. The Court may, of
course, elect to excuse the defect and consider the paper, but Defendant’s post hoc
explanation does not establish that leave existed beforehand or that Rule 7.1(5) was
satisfied.
II. DEFENDANT DOES NOT OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S ALTERNATIVE
REQUEST FOR LEAVE
5. Defendant expressly states that it “does not object” to Plaintiff’s alternative request for
leave to file the attached short response, and asks the Court, in the alternative, to allow
both papers. Def.’s Opp. to Mot. to Disregard at 2. Thus, if the Court elects to consider
Defendant’s second opposition, there is no remaining dispute that Plaintiff should receive
an equal opportunity to answer the new privilege arguments.
6. Plaintiff therefore requests that, at minimum, the Court deem Plaintiff’s Proposed Short
Response to Defendant’s Second Opposition Regarding Privilege filed and considered
together with the second opposition. That alternative eliminates any claimed prejudice
while preserving the Court’s ability to decide the underlying Supplemental Motion on a
complete record.
III. THE BRIEFING SHOULD NOW BE CLOSED ABSENT EXPRESS
LEAVE
7. Rule 7.1(10) provides that a motion stands submitted for decision upon expiration of the
reply period. The underlying Supplemental Motion already proceeded through opposition
and Plaintiff’s reply. If the Court nevertheless considers Defendant’s second opposition
and Plaintiff’s short response, no purpose is served by continuing a serial sequence of
unauthorized answers to answers.
8. Plaintiff respectfully requests a clear direction that briefing on the underlying
Supplemental Motion, and on this procedural motion after this Reply, is closed absent
express leave of court. That result enforces the structure of Rule 7.1, avoids further
procedural satellite litigation, and permits the Court to reach the merits of the pending
requests.
IV. PLAINTIFF PRESERVES THE FACIAL SERVICE DATE
INCONSISTENCY
9. Plaintiff additionally notes that Defendant’s September 21 Opposition contains a
Certificate of Service stating that the paper was electronically served on September 19,
2026. Plaintiff preserves that facial inconsistency for the record but does not rely upon it
as the principal basis for relief. The controlling issue remains Defendant’s failure to
obtain leave before filing the second opposition.
V. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
For these reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:
A. GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion to Disregard Unauthorized Second Opposition and disregard
Defendant’s second opposition in deciding the underlying Supplemental Motion;
B. ALTERNATIVELY, if the Court elects to consider Defendant’s second opposition, grant
Plaintiff leave and deem Plaintiff’s previously submitted Proposed Short Response filed
and considered;
C. DIRECT that briefing on the underlying Supplemental Motion and, following this Reply,
the present procedural motion is closed absent express leave of court; and
D. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully Submitted,
_________________________
Halo4asin
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Dated: September 14, 2026
