![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
September 15, 2006, Decided ; September 18, 2006, Filed
Civil No. 3:04cv1109 (JBA)
Ruling on Defendants' Motion to Strike [Doc. # 88]
Accompanying their motion for summary judgment, defendants have moved to strike large portions of plaintiffs' Local Rule 56(a) 2 Statement, as well as supporting evidence. See Mot. to Strike [Doc. # 88]. Because they filed this motion, defendants refused to either admit or deny many paragraphs of plaintiffs' Statement, [*2] in contravention of D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 56(a)2. After being warned by this Court that a motion to strike was not properly directed to a Rule 56 Statement and that defendants risked any paragraphs of plaintiffs' statement not specifically denied being deemed admitted for purposes of summary judgment, defendants filed an amended Local Rule 56 Statement [Doc. # 114], and a supplemental memorandum in support of their motion to strike [Doc. # 115].
For the reasons that follow, the Court holds that a motion to strike is not the appropriate vehicle for contesting statements of fact in an opposing party's Local Rule 56 Statement or the evidence proffered in support, and defendants' motion will be denied.
I. Motions to Strike
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), a court may strike "any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter" from a party's pleading. Such motions are generally disfavored. See Salcer v. Envicon Equities Corp., 744 F.2d 935, 938 (2d Cir. 1984), vacated on other grounds, 478 U.S. 1015, 106 S. Ct. 3324, 92 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1986); see also Wright & Miller, Fed. Practice & Procedure [*3] § 1380 ("[M]otions under Rule 12(f) are viewed with disfavor by the federal courts and are infrequently granted.").
"Most importantly, Rule 12(f) allows a court to strike pleadings only. Declarations and affidavits are not pleadings." Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10672, No. 02 Civ. 1334 (SAS), 2002 WL 1482625, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2002). Therefore it is inappropriate to strike material contained in exhibits to motions. See Watkins v. New Castle County, 374 F. Supp. 2d 379, 394 (D. Del. 2005) (court would not consider evidence improperly attached to reply brief, but also would not strike it from the record); Monroe v. Board of Ed. of Town of Wolcott, 65 F.R.D. 641, 645 (D. Conn. 1975) ("A rule 12(f) motion to strike is not strictly proper in this instance, for the record of the . . . hearing [attached to opposition to summary judgment] is not a 'pleading.'").
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69305 *; 2006 WL 2666081
FRANK RICCI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHN DESTEFANO, et al., Defendants.
Subsequent History: Summary judgment granted by, Dismissed by, Dismissed without prejudice by, in part Ricci v. DeStefano, 554 F. Supp. 2d 142, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73277 (D. Conn., Sept. 28, 2006)
Prior History: Ricci v. Destefano, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58850 (D. Conn., Feb. 28, 2005)
motion to strike, summary judgment, Local Rule, material fact, briefing, portions, moot