Opinion
No. 02 C 9288
February 5, 2003
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Westfield Ford, Inc. ("Westfield") has filed its Answer and Affirmative Defense ("AD") to the Title VII Complaint brought against it by its ex-employee Traci Smith ("Smith"). Because that responsive pleading exhibits some departures from fundamental principles of federal pleading, this Court strikes it sua sponte — but with leave granted to replead.
To begin with, several of Westfield's responses (Answer ¶¶ 3, 7, 8 and 9) misstate the standards that are explicitly spelled out in the second sentence of Fed.R.Civ.P. ("Rule") 8(b) as the predicate for getting the benefit of a deemed denial, sometimes coupling that departure with a meaningless demand for "strict proof." In both of those respects, see App. ¶ 1 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 279 (N.D. Ill. 2001). Those paragraphs are therefore stricken.
Answer ¶ 7 also declines to answer the allegations of Complaint ¶ 7 on the premise that a document "speaks for itself." Even apart from the obvious problem that, as Westfield's counsel states, the document is not attached to the complaint (thus rendering it impossible for this Court to know whether Smith's allegations are or are not accurate), that notion is unacceptable — see app. ¶ 3 to state Farm. Answer ¶ 7 must therefore be recast.
Finally, some aspects of the AD (the concept of which is defined by Rule 8(c) and by the caselaw applying that Rule) must be cleaned up. AD ¶ 4 is at odds with the fundamental notion that an AD admits a plaintiff's allegations but explains why defendant is nonetheless not liable to plaintiff — that paragraph directly contradicts Complaint ¶ 18, which Westfield has already put in issue by its denial. Accordingly AD ¶ 4 is also stricken. And relatedly, the opening clause of AD ¶ 5 is inconsistent with the fundamental nature of an AD, and it too is stricken.
As stated at the outset, the several items identified here call for the entire Answer and AD to be stricken so that, when Westfield corrects the present deficiencies, any reader will be able to deal with a self-contained pleading rather than having to move back and forth between two separate documents. Leave is granted to file that new self-contained responsive pleading in this Court's chambers (with a copy of course to be transmitted to Smith's counsel) on or before February 18, 2003.
No charge is to be made to Westfield by its counsel for the added work and expense incurred in correcting counsel's errors. Westfield'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)