PAUL BORMAN, District Judge
On April 13, 2004, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. On July 14, 2004, the Court heard oral argument on the motion. At the conclusion of the July 14, 2004 hearing, the Court directed the parties to file supplemental briefs dealing with impact on this case, if any, of the Michigan Legislature's response to the Michigan Supreme Court's decision in Gladych v. New Family Homes, Inc., 468 Mich. 594 (2003).
On July 21, 2004, the parties filed their supplemental briefs. Plaintiff's brief, however, contained a discussion of the "Single Publication Rule," outside the scope of the Court's direction. Therefore, on August 11, 2004, the Court entered an Order allowing Defendant to file a supplemental brief as to this issue.
On August 26, 2004, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to File a Brief Upon the Republication Issue, in Response to the Defendant's July 23, 2004 Brief and Benchbook, arguing "Plaintiff, because he complied with this Court's July 14, 2004 directive, has been permitted to offer only three citations of cases touching upon the republication issue. That is not fair." (Motion, p. 4). Plaintiff seeks leave to file a response to Defendant's supplemental brief.
The Court has reviewed the motion and applicable law, and finds that Defendant was allowed to file a supplemental brief pursuant to the Court's August 11, 2004 Order. To allow Plaintiff to file a response to Defendant's supplemental brief, when the filing of Defendant's supplemental brief was predicated upon the Court's finding that Plaintiff's brief was outside the scope of the Court's directive, would delay resolution of the motion and prejudice Defendant. The Court will not allow further briefing on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Brief Upon the Republication Issue is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.