Opinion
No. 01 C 3739
July 2, 2001
MEMORANDUM ORDER
DaimlerChrysler Corporation ("Chrysler") has filed its Answer to the personal injury suit brought against it by Rafal Kaczkowski ("Kaczkowski"). This memorandum order is issued sua sponte because of some patent pleading flaws in that responsive pleading that require prompt correction.
Despite the plain roadmap that is marked out by the second sentence of Fed.R.Civ.P. ("Rule") 8(b), Chrysler's Answer Count I ¶¶ 4, 5 and 14-19 and Count II ¶¶ 4, 5 and 13-17 employ this impermissible locution:
The defendant possesses insufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph — of Count I of plaintiff's Complaint at Law and, therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof.
Both as to the inadequacy of such a disclaimer and as to the meaningless demand for "strict proof," see App. ¶ 1 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 279 (N.D. Ill. 2001). Although this Court may be wrong about this, it has a general recollection that the same defect may have been pointed out to other members of Chrysler's law firm before this. But whether or not that is the case, the firm ought to eliminate the improper language from its computer program.
Meanwhile the entire Answer is stricken to avoid the need to resort to patchwork pleading. Leave is, however, granted to file a self-contained Amended Answer in this Court's chambers on or before July 16, 2001.
No charge is to be made to Chrysler by its counsel for the added work and expense incurred in correcting counsel's own errors. Chrysler's counsel are ordered to apprise their client to that effect by letter, with a copy to be transmitted to this Court's chambers as an informational matter (not for filing).