Sebunya v. Holder

• Decision Date: 30 November 2012
• Docket Number: Civil No. 2:12-cv-67-GZS
• Citation: Sebunya v. Holder, Civil No. 2:12-cv-67-GZS (D. Me. Nov 30, 2012)
• Parties: MOSES ALI SEBUNYA, Plaintiff v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Defendant
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maine

MOSES ALI SEBUNYA, Plaintiff

v.ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Defendant

Civil No. 2:12-cv-67-GZS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

Dated: November 30, 2012

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO STRIKE

On September 27, 2012, the plaintiff filed the instant motion to strike portions of the defendant's answer.See Plaintiff's Motion To Strike Portions of Defendant's Answer("Motion")(ECF No. 13).The defendant thereafter sought and was granted permission to amend his answer, seeECFNos. 14-15, filing an amended pleading that addressed many of the plaintiff's concerns, see Defendant's First Amended Answer ("Amended Answer")(ECF No. 16);Defendant's Opposition to Motion To Strike("Opposition")(ECF No. 20)at 1-2;Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion To Strike Portions of Defendant's Answer("Reply")(ECF No. 23)at 1.Because the Amended Answer moots many points raised by the plaintiff, and the rest are without merit, the Motion is denied.

I.Applicable Legal Standards

The plaintiff moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike portions of the answer on the basis of non-compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.SeeMotionat 1.Pursuant to Rule 12(f), "[t]he court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter."Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).Rule 8provides, in relevant, part, that a party responding to a pleading "must . . . admit or deny the allegations asserted against it by an opposing party."Id. 8(b)(1)(B)."A party that intends in good faith to deny only part of an allegation must admit the part that is true and deny the rest."Id. 8(b)(4)."A party that lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of an allegation must so state, and the statement has the effect of a denial."Id. 8(b)(5).

This court has observed:

Rule 12(f) motions have not been commonplace either in this Circuit or in this District.According to the First Circuit, that may be explained by the fact that such motions are narrow in scope, disfavored in practice, and not calculated readily to invoke the court's discretion. . . .The rationale provided by the Second Circuit is . . . quite sound:

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have long departed from the era when lawyers were bedeviled by intricate pleading rules and when lawsuits were won or lost on the pleadings alone.Thus the courts should not tamper with the pleadings unless there is a strong reason for so doing.

Ashey v. Lily Transp. Corp., No. CIV. 01-57BS, 2001 WL 705804, at *1(D. Me.June 18, 2001)(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).Motions to strike are not only disfavored but also "are rarely granted absent of showing of prejudice to the moving party."Andretta v. Bath Iron Works Corp., No. 01-247-P-C, 2002 WL 576033, at *1(D. Me.Apr. 12, 2002)(rec. dec., aff'd May 13, 2002)(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

II.Discussion

The plaintiff seeks to strike four categories of paragraphs in the defendant's answer, as well as four affirmative defenses.See generally Motion.As a general matter, as the defendant observes, seeOppositionat 3, the plaintiff's objections do not implicate the bases for striking pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(f): that they contain "redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter."Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).This, alone, constitutes sufficient reason to deny theMotion.However, in the alternative, I consider the plaintiff's specific points, concluding for the reasons that follow that they are either mooted by the Amended Answer or are without merit.

A.Category One: Allegations About Documents

The plaintiff first seeks to strike a category of answers consisting of paragraphs 5, 6, 50, 55, 61, 63, and 92.SeeMotionat 1.The defendant changed none of these paragraphs in his Amended Answer.CompareDefendant's Answer to Complaint ("Original Answer")(ECF No. 5) ¶¶ 5, 6, 50, 55, 61, 63, 92withAmended Answer¶¶ 5, 6, 50, 55, 61, 63, 92;see alsoOppositionat 4.

The plaintiff faults the defendant for stating, in the above-referenced paragraphs, that "the document speaks for itself" and refusing to admit allegations in the complaint about the content of documents even when the complaint quotes directly from them.SeeMotionat 1.He contends that these refusals violate the requirement of Rule 8(b)(4) that a defendant must admit in part any allegation that accurately quotes from a document or makes accurate allegations concerning it.Seeid. at 1-2;see also, e.g., State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 279(N.D. Ill.2001)("Another unacceptable device, used by lawyers who would prefer not to admit something that is alleged about a document in a complaint (or who may perhaps be too lazy to draft an appropriate response to such an allegation), is to say instead that the document 'speaks for itself.'This Court has been attempting to listen to such written materials for years (in the forlorn hope that one will indeed give voice) - but until some such writing does break its silence, this Court will continue to require pleaders to employ one of the three alternatives that are permitted by Rule 8(b) in response to all allegations about the content of documents (or statutes or regulations).");Chicago Dist. Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Balmoral Racing Club, Inc., No. 00 C 2375, 2000 WL 876921, at *1(N.D. Ill.June 26, 2000)("No reasonappears why Balmoral should not respond by admitting any allegation that accurately describes the content of whatever part of a document is referred to.").

The defendant denies in part or in whole each of the paragraphs at issue on the basis that the plaintiff inaccurately quoted and/or characterized the underlying documents.SeeAmended Answer¶¶ 5, 6, 50, 55, 61, 63, and 92;Oppositionat 4-5.As the defendant observes, seeOppositionat 4, the plaintiff does not provide the court with the documents at issue, preventing the court from assessing the accuracy of his quotations and characterizations.The defendant concedes that most of the misquotations are relatively minor but takes the position that a quoted paragraph or sentence constitutes one allegation, namely, that the document says "X," rather than a multi-part allegation that a defendant must parse to identify which portions are accurate and which are not.Seeid. at 8 n.3.Finally, the defendant argues that the plaintiff, who has possession of all of the underlying documents and can easily prove their contents, suffers no prejudice from the denial of his allegations regarding them.Seeid. at 3, 5.

The plaintiff rejoins that, in correspondence between counsel, he did identify prejudice -that the defendant's evasive responses would increase the cost of discovery.SeeReplyat 4.He argues that Rule 8(b)(4)"does not permit this gamesmanship approach to crafting an answer to deny any allegation that is not 100% accurate."Id.;see alsoid. at 1("When a defendant violates the pleadings rules and files an evasive answer, it forces the plaintiff unnecessarily to utilize discovery devices to prove what the defendant should have admitted in its answer.").

I agree with the defendant that Rule 8(b)(4) cannot reasonably be read to require a defendant, faced with a block quotation from a document in one paragraph of a complaint, to deny only those portions that are misquoted or mischaracterized and admit the rest.In any event, even assuming dubitante that the rule imposes such a requirement, I am at a loss to understandhow a failure to admit that a document is partially accurately quoted or characterized inflates the cost of discovery: ultimately, there can be no real dispute that the document says what it says.In any event, any added cost is fairly borne by a plaintiff when the plaintiff failed in the first instance to accurately quote or characterize a document.

The motion to strikeparagraphs 5, 6, 50, 55, 61, 63, and 92 accordingly is denied.

B.Category Two: Allegations About Parties, Jurisdiction, Venue

The plaintiff next seeks to strike a category of answers consisting of paragraphs 8-11 and 99.SeeMotionat 2.The Amended Answer corrects the defendant's complained-of failure to admit or deny paragraphs 10, 11, and 99, mooting the Motion as to those responses.CompareOriginal Answer¶¶ 10-11, 99withAmended Answer¶¶ 10-11, 99;see alsoMotionat 2-3;Oppositionat 5-6.

The defendant rewords paragraphs 8 and 9 of his answer but continues to maintain that no response is required.CompareOriginal Answer¶¶ 8-9withAmended Answer¶¶ 8-9;see alsoOppositionat 5-6.The plaintiff does not respond to this point in his reply, seemingly conceding the point.See generally Reply.In any event, the defendant is correct that paragraph 8 of the complaint, which states that the plaintiff sues the defendant in his official capacity, and paragraph 9, which states that the plaintiff demands a jury trial, seeComplaint and Demand for Jury Trial and Injunctive Relief Sought ("Complaint")(ECF No. 1) ¶¶ 8-9, are not "allegations asserted against"the defendant that he must admit or deny for purposes of Rule 8(b)(1)(B).

Finally, as the defendant alternatively argues, seeOppositionat 6, the plaintiff is not prejudiced by any failure to admit or deny these statements.The plaintiff knows that he is suing the defendant in his official capacity and that he demands a jury trial.No discovery is implicated.

The motion to strike is denied on the basis of mootness as to paragraphs 10, 11, and 99, and on the basis of lack of merit as to paragraphs 8 and 9.

C.Category Three: Allegations as to Which the Defendant Disclaims Knowledge

The plaintiff next seeks to strike a category of answers consisting of paragraphs 12, 16, 19, 23, 24, 28, 30, 36, 37, 39, 42, 49, 51, 52, 69, 71, 72, 83, 91, 96, 97, and 98.SeeMotionat 3.The Amended Answer corrects the defendant's...