UPDATE: Surreply Granted
Date: September 25, 2025
On September 25, 2025, Judge Donovan W. Frank granted Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Surreply in Strickland v. Ramsey County, et al.. The order explicitly recognizes that the late memorandum filed by Defendant's counsel Bradley A. Kletscher raised new arguments after briefing had closed, warranting a limited response from Plaintiff.
Summary in Context
This ruling follows Plaintiff's earlier motion for leave to file a surreply, which was prompted by Kletscher's memorandum served two days past the deadline and without a corresponding motion for leave under D. Minn. Local Rule 7.1. That memorandum sought to reframe the record and introduce additional theories after Plaintiff had already filed timely opposition materials.
By granting leave, Judge Frank signaled that the Court would not simply absorb the late filing into the record without giving Plaintiff a fair chance to respond.
For background on the original motion, see: Surreply Filed (September 15, 2025).
What the Order Does
The order authorizes Plaintiff to file a targeted surreply addressing only the new issues raised in Kletscher's untimely memorandum. In practical terms, this means:
- The late memorandum will not stand as an unchallenged "last word" in the briefing;
- Plaintiff's response will be considered part of the formal record; and
- The Court acknowledges that new arguments were, in fact, introduced by Defendant.
The ruling does not expand the scope of the case; it restores balance to the motion practice by letting the party who followed the rules answer the party who did not.
Why It Matters
Surreplies are not automatic in federal court. They are granted when fairness requires an additional, focused response-usually because one party has tried to shift the ground after briefing should have been complete. Here, Judge Frank's decision is important for at least three reasons:
- It confirms that the Court noticed the timing and content of Kletscher's late filing;
- It implicitly rejects the idea that procedural shortcuts can be used to box Plaintiff out of the record; and
- It preserves the integrity of the briefing sequence in a case already marked by irregularities elsewhere in the system.
In short, the Court did not reward the rule violation. It put Plaintiff back on equal footing.
Relationship to the Broader Pattern
Across the federal case, the HRO appeal, and the related civil defamation/harassment matter, Plaintiff has documented a recurring theme: attempts by opposing counsel and local actors to reshape the record through late, ex parte, or procedurally irregular actions.
Judge Frank's ruling does not resolve those systemic questions, but it does mark a clear line within the federal proceedings: if new arguments are added outside the rules, Plaintiff will be allowed to answer them.
What This Means Going Forward
With leave granted, Plaintiff's surreply becomes a core part of the motion record. Going forward, any appellate or oversight review will see:
- the late memorandum itself,
- the motion documenting why it was improper and prejudicial, and
- the Court's decision to allow a response rather than silently accepting the irregular filing.
The message is simple: if one side is going to change the game midstream, the other side will be allowed to keep playing. Or, in less formal terms-Judge Frank let her cook.