# Brown Clark v. Meads

> District Court, E.D. North Carolina · April 28, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10252138

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** April 28, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10252138

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
EASTERN DIVISION
No. 2:21-CV-00034-FL

Lillie Brown Clark, as the Administrator
of the Estate of Andrew Brown, Jr.,

Plaintiff,

Order
v.

Daniel Meads, et al.,

Defendants.

Defendants have asked the court to strike a reply brief filed by Plaintiff Lillie Brown Clark,
arguing that it violates the court’s local rules. D.E. 87. They say that since the underlying motion
was a discovery motion, the Local Civil Rules do not allow parties to file a reply brief. They ask
the court to strike the reply brief from the docket. Brown Clark disagrees. She argues that the
motion underlying her reply, which seeks an order authorizing the release of a report from the
North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, is not a discovery motion.
Under the court’s Local Civil Rules, “a discovery motion is any motion or other request to
the court that seeks to enforce, use, regulate, extend, modify, nullify, or limit any of the procedures
in any of Rules 26 through 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or” the corresponding Local
Civil Rules. Local Civil Rule 7.1(c)(1). Brown Clark’s motion asks the court to order the SBI to
release one of its reports “to all parties under the proposed Protective Order.” D.E. 83 at 5. The
response and reply then argue over the protective order’s terms.
Protective orders are governed by Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. So
since Brown Clark’s motion seeks to use Rule 26 to facilitate disclosure of the SBI report, the
motion qualifies as a discovery motion.
Given that Brown Clark’s motion is a discovery motion, she is bound by the Local Rules
governing them. Muhammad v. Fleming, -- F 4th --, 2022 WL 791419, at *4 n.6 (4th Cir. Mar. 16,
2022) (“Local rules are binding on the parties and the court that promulgated them.”). Among
those rules is a prohibition on filing reply briefs in connection with discovery motions. Local Civil
Rule 7.1(g)(2) & 26.1(d)(3). Since the court did not authorize Brown Clark to file a reply brief,
see id. Rule 1.1 (“A judge or magistrate judge, for good cause and in his or her discretion, may
alter these rules in any particular case.”), she violated the Local Rules by doing so.! The court thus
grants the motion to strike (D.E. 87) and instructs the Clerk to strike D.E. 85 from the docket.
Dated: April 28, 2022 xr.
Kotet 7 Alemben
Robert T. Numbers, II
United States Magistrate Judge

The court also notes that Brown Clark’s citations in her response in opposition to the motion to strike do not comply
with the court’s local rules. See Local Civil Rules 7.2(b). Counsel should ensure that future filings comply with that
rule and the remainder of the Local Civil Rules.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10252138. Public record. Not legal advice.