Gilmur R. Murray, Esq. (#111856)
Derek G. Howard, Esq. (#118082)
Alex J. Luchenitser, Esq. (#177367)
THE MILLS LAW FIRM
300 Drake's Landing, Suite 155
Greenbrae, California 94904
Telephone: (415) 464-4770

Attorneys for Plaintiff Dwight E. Wininger
On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DWIGHT E. WININGER, On Behalf of Himself and
All Others Similarly Situated,

                      Plaintiff,

           v.

SI MANAGEMENT L.P., a Limited Partnership;
SYNTHETIC MANAGEMENT, G. P., a/k/a, SI
MANAGEMENT G. P., a General Partnership;
LEONARD CHILL; JON P. BECKMAN; W.
WAYNE FREED; RALPH KENNER; W.
GARDNER WRIGHT; CHILL INVESTMENTS,
INC., a Delaware corporation; BECKMAN
INVESTMENTS, INC., a Delaware corporation;
FREED INVESTMENTS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; KENNER INVESTMENTS, INC., a
Delaware corporation; WRIGHT INVESTMENTS,
INC., a Delaware corporation; and SYNTHETIC
INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation,

                      Defendants.
___________________________________________

| 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

Case No.: C-97-1622 CW
[filed Apr. 3, 1998]

Date/time: Submitted on the papers.

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
STRIKE, OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR LEAVE TO
FILE SUPPLEMENTAL
MATERIALS

What is most noticeable about the Proposed Pro-Plan Intervenors' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike is what it does not argue. The Proposed Pro-Plan Intervenors contend that the false affidavits filed along with the March 2, 1998 "Intervenors' Objections" were filed in response to statements in plaintiff's opposition to the motion to disqualify plaintiff's counsel. The Proposed Pro-Plan Intervenors, however, do not even attempt to demonstrate that there was good cause for their failure to file the affidavits along with their reply brief. The Proposed Pro-Plan Intervenors do not claim that they included in the "Intervenors' Objections" new arguments and exhibits purportedly relevant to the disqualification motion in order to respond to new evidence or new arguments made by plaintiff.

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff respectfully requests that his motion to strike be granted. Plaintiff further respectfully requests that the "Pro-Plan Intervenors' Response to Plaintiff's March 12, 1998 Letter to the Court," dated March 17, 1998, also be struck, as this supplemental brief was authorized neither by the local rules nor by court order. Alternatively, plaintiff respectfully requests leave to file supplemental materials responding to the Proposed Pro-Plan Intervenors' March 2 and March 17 filings.

Dated: April 3, 1998

    THE MILLS LAW FIRM
    300 Drake's Landing, Suite 155
    Greenbrae, CA 94904
    Telephone: (415) 464-4770

By: _______________________________
    Alex J. Luchenitser
    Attorneys for Plaintiff
    Dwight E. Wininger On Behalf of
    Himself and All Others Similarly Situated

D:\Winword\DOCS\SYN2\ReplyMotStrike.doc/clh