A. JOE FISH, United States District Chief Judge
On May 21, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion to strike new argument raised in defendant's reply brief, or alternatively, a motion for leave to file a surreply. See Docket Sheet.
The purpose of a reply brief under local rule 7.1(f), "is to rebut the nonmovant[s'] response, thereby persuading the court that the movant is entitled to the relief requested by the motion. " Springs Industries, Inc. v. American Motorists Insurance Company, 137 F.R.D. 238, 239-240 (N.D. Tex. 1991); see also Dethrow v. Parkland Health Hospital System, 204 F.R.D. 102, 103-104 (N.D. Tex. 2001). Consequently, a court generally will not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. See Lacher v. West, 147 F. Supp.2d 538, 539 (N.D. Tex. 2001); Blanchard and Company, Inc. v. Heritage Capital Corporation, No. 3:97-CV-690-H, 1997 WL 757909 at *1 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 1997); Springs Industries, 137 F.R.D. at 240. However, no "palpable injustice" exists where the nonmovants are given a chance to respond, as would be the situation if the court were to grant the instant motion for leave to file surreply. See Blanchard, 1997 WL 757909 at * 1; Springs Industries, 137 F.R.D. at 240. In granting leave to file a surreply, the court affords plaintiffs the opportunity to respond to the new argument raised in the defendant's reply brief. See Blanchard, 1997 WL 757909 at *1.
Accordingly, the plaintiffs' motion to strike new argument raised in the defendant's reply brief is DENIED, while their alternative motion for leave to file a surreply is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.