Opinion
CIVIL NO. 2002/237-M/R
April 21, 2003
ORDER DENYING HORNBY'S MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT
THIS MATTER came for consideration on Hornby's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Complaint and for Enlargement of Time to Respond. Plaintiffs filed opposition to the motion. Defendants did not further reply.
Hornby's motion, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f), requests that the Court strike allegation in Plaintiffs' Complaint regarding Hornby's ". . . purported past sexual activities with persons other than minor Plaintiff, which are not only irrelevant to the issues of any alleged improper conduct towards minor Plaintiff but also highly prejudicial to Defendant Hornby if permitted to remain in the complaint." Hornby seeks complete deletion of paragraphs 28, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 of the Complaint; deletion of the last sentence of paragraphs 8 and 27; and deletion of the first two sentences of paragraph 33. Hornby argues that ". . . The reference to being a habitual sexual offender or of having allegedly engaged in sexual activities with minors would cast Defendant Hornby in such a derogatory light that any reference made to such non-related matters would surely prejudice Defendant Hornby. The allegations of any purported past sexual history of Defendant Hornby are unnecessary to the theories of recovery asserted by Plaintiffs. These assertions are clearly inflammatory and would have a prejudicial impact on a defense presented by Defendant Hornby . . ."
In opposition to such motion, Plaintiffs assert that the subject allegations ". . . are important to establishing both a pattern of molestation by Hornby of young girls entrusted to his care and the negligent hiring and supervision of Hornby by the Wyndham Defendants . . . "Plaintiffs argue that Hornby has not met his burden under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f) and that ". . . Hornby's arguments are more appropriate during the summary judgment stage or prior to trial in the form of a motion in limine, not at the answer stage . . ."
Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(f) allows the Court to strike from a pleading any insufficient defense or any immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter. Motions to strike are generally disfavored by the Courts. Larsen v. Senate of Pennsylvania, 955 F. Supp. 1549, 1582 (M.D. Pa. 1997). To prevail on a motion to strike, the movant must show that the allegations being challenged are so unrelated to Plaintiff's claims as to be unworthy of any consideration and that their presence in the pleadings will be prejudicial. Wright and Miller, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURES, Civil 2d § 1380. Such motions are not favored because they are a drastic remedy to be resorted to only when required for the purpose of justice. Krisa v. The Equitable Life Assurance Society, 109 F. Supp.2d 316, 319 (M.D.Pa. 2000). In considering a motion to strike the Court will deem as admitted all of the non-moving party's well-pleaded facts, draw all reasonable inferences in the pleader's favor and resolve all doubts in favor of denying the motion. Wailua Assoc. v. Aetna Cas. and Surety Co., 183 F.R.D. 550, 553-554 (D. Haw. 1998).
A motion to strike redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter is also viewed with disfavor as "a time waster." Somerset Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Kimball, 168. F.R.D. 69, 71 (M.D. Fl. 1996). The Court will not strike such matter unless it bears no possible relation to the dispute or could confuse the issues. Government Guarantee Fund et al. v. Hyatt Corp., 166 F.R.D. 321, 324 (D.V.I. 1996); Delaware Health Care, Inc. v. MCD Holding Co., 893 F. Supp. 1279, 1291-92 (D.Del. 1995). Mere redundancy, immateriality, impertinence or scandalousness is not sufficient to justify striking an allegation — the allegation must also be shown to be prejudicial to the moving party. Hardin v. American Elec. Power, 188 F.R.D. 509, 511 (S.D. Ind. 1999). Glasser v. Govt of the Virgin Islands, 853 F. Supp. 852; 30 V.I. 97, 99 (D.V.I. 1994). Scandalous matter does not merely offend someone's sensibilities; it must improperly cast a person or entity in a cruelly derogatory light. Skadegaard v. Farrell, 578 F. Supp. 1209, 1221 (D.N.J. 1984).
Plaintiffs have offered tenable arguments in support of their pleadings. However, the Court need not now decide the relevance of the allegations in the subject paragraphs and whether Plaintiff may offer evidence with regard thereto. Hornby has not sustained his burden with regard to this motion. The only conceivable prejudice to Hornby from failure to strike such allegations would arise if a jury were to view the Complaint. It is extremely unlikely that this Complaint would be allowed as a jury exhibit and if so, the matter could then be appropriately re-visited.
Accordingly, it is hereby;
ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendant's Motion to Strike is DENIED without prejudice.
2. The matter may be considered by the trial judge in the context of the case status if, for any reason, the Complaint is allowed as an exhibit for the jury.
3. Nothing herein shall be determinative of any evidence to be allowed at trial.
4. Hornby shall serve and file any responsive pleading by May 5, 2003.