Opinion
Case No. 03-2410-CM
October 27, 2003
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is separate Defendant Paper Machinery Corporation's Motion for More Definite Statement (doc. 7). More specifically, this Defendant requests the Court enter an Order requiring Plaintiff to plead additional information with respect to Counts I and II of her Complaint, including
• the specific components of the XG-1000-70-3 677 Plaintiff believes were defective;
• the particular areas of the machine Plaintiff claims is the "zone of danger";
• the specific parts of the machine Plaintiff believes are pinch point and "other points of foreseeable danger";
• the specific controls of the machine Plaintiff claims are misleading, and the reasons Plaintiff believes the controls are misleading;
• the exact circumstances upon which the accident occurred; and
• a description of Plaintiff's actions while using the machine.
Relevant Facts
Plaintiff filed this products liability claim against Defendants alleging she was injured when moving parts of the machine cut off portions of her fingers and crushed others. Count I of Plaintiffs Complaint is based on strict liability, and Count n is based on negligence. In both counts, Plaintiff alleges the machine and/or its related component parts were in a defective condition and unreasonably dangerous when put to a reasonably anticipated use. In response to these claims, Defendant filed this Motion for More Definite Statement pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). In support of its Motion, Defendant argues Plaintiff should be required to plead the additional information referenced above. For the reasons below, Defendant's motion is denied.Discussion
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e) provides that "[i]f a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, the party may move for a more definite statement." "The situations in which making a Rule 12(e) motion is appropriate are very limited and, as a result, such motions are infrequently granted."
Pas Communications, Inc. v. U.S. Sprint, Inc., 112 F. Supp.2d 1106, 1108 (D.Kan. 2000) (citation omitted).
Under the circumstances presented here, the Court is not persuaded Counts I and n of Plaintiff's Complaint are "so vague and ambiguous" that Defendant "cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading." Plaintiff has complied with the notice filing requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court finds the additional details sought by Defendant regarding Plaintiffs claims are more appropriately elicited through the discovery process. For this reason, Defendant's Motion for a More Definite Statement is denied.
See Morse v. Regents of University of Colorado, 154 F.3d 1124, 1127 (10th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted).
See Schmidt v. Shawnee Mission Sch. Dist., No. Civ. A. 98-2377-GTV, 1998 WL 892662, at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 16, 1998) ("[c]ourts expect parties to pursue discovery for details beyond those required for rule 8 pleadings."); Audiotext Comms. Network Inc., v. U.S. Telecom, Inc., No. Civ. A. 94-2395-GTV, 1995 WL 36543, at *5 (D. Kan. Jan. 9, 1995) ("[i]f more information is required, defendant has the full panoply of discovery methods available to it').
IT IS SO ORDERED.