UPDATE: Surreply Filed
Date: September 15, 2025
On September 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to submit a surreply in Strickland v. Ramsey County, et al.. The request was prompted by a late-breaking memorandum from Defendant's counsel Bradley A. Kletscher, served two days past the deadline and without leave of court, in violation of D. Minn. Local Rule 7.1.
Summary in Context
After briefing on the pending motions was effectively complete, Kletscher filed an additional memorandum that rehashed old arguments, added new ones, and arrived after the window for responsive filings had closed. Rather than silently accept an unearned last word, Plaintiff moved for leave to file a surreply, explaining that the late submission:
- violated Local Rule 7.1's limits on memoranda,
- introduced new arguments without an opportunity for response, and
- created a risk of prejudice if the Court considered it unchallenged.
The motion for leave does not seek to expand the issues, only to restore balance to the briefing and ensure that the record reflects a fair opportunity to respond.
Procedural Background
Local Rule 7.1 strictly regulates the number and timing of memoranda in motion practice. Parties may not file additional briefs without permission, and deadlines are not suggestions. Kletscher's late memorandum arrived:
- after Plaintiff had already filed timely opposition materials; and
- without any motion explaining the delay or requesting leave to file out of time.
In other words, Defendant attempted to add an extra layer of briefing and argument outside the framework the Court had set—and outside the rules governing all parties.
Rule 7.1 Issues and Prejudice
The surreply motion highlights two core concerns. First, that allowing untimely and unauthorized filings erodes procedural fairness, especially where one party has already complied with the rules. Second, that Kletscher's late memorandum is not a neutral clarification—it includes new framing and characterization of the record that could mislead if left unanswered.
Plaintiff therefore seeks leave to file a focused surreply limited to the issues raised in the late memorandum, specifically to:
- correct misstatements and omissions in Defendant's recitation of the record;
- address newly introduced legal theories; and
- preserve the issue for appellate and oversight review if the Court elects to consider the late filing.
Relationship to the Broader Pattern
This episode does not occur in a vacuum. Across the federal case, the HRO appeal, and the related civil defamation/harassment matter, Plaintiff has documented a recurring pattern: last-minute shifts, irregular filings, and attempts to shape the record without providing a clear procedural path for response.
The surreply motion is a narrow response to one instance of that pattern. It ensures that if the Court considers Kletscher's untimely memorandum, it will do so alongside a contemporaneous, fact-based counterweight from Plaintiff.
What This Means Going Forward
The Court must now decide whether to grant leave for the surreply and how much weight, if any, to give the late memorandum. Whatever the outcome, Plaintiff has:
- preserved objections to the procedural irregularity,
- identified the specific ways the late filing is prejudicial, and
- created a clear record for any reviewing court.
In short, the surreply motion is both a shield and a receipt: it protects against unfair surprise in the present and documents the behavior for anyone evaluating the integrity of the process later.