Opinion
Case No. 04-21980-CIV-JORDAN.
January 10, 2005
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION STRIKE
The motion by Aetna Health Inc. ("Aetna") to compel compliance with Local Rule 7.7 and to strike [D.E. 25] are DENIED. Aetna seeks to strike the December 16, 2004, correspondence by Ms. Wanza to the court because it is in violation of Local Rule 7.7, which prohibits a party's direct correspondence with the court unless invited or directed.
The court notes that Aetna, in filing its motion to compel and motion to strike, itself failed to comply with Local Rule 7.1.A.1., requiring a memorandum of law citing supporting authorities accompanying the motion; Local Rule 7.1.A.2, requiring a proposed order accompanying the motion; and Local Rule 7.1.A.3, requiring the moving party to confer with opposing counsel prior to the filing of the motion.
Motions to strike are generally disfavored because of their drastic nature. See, e.g., Augustus v. Bd. of Public Instruction of Escambia County, Florida, 306 F.2d 862, 868 (5th Cir. 1962); Royal Ins. Co. of America v. M/Y Anastasia, 1997 WL 608722, *3 (N.D.Fla. 1997). Moreover, motions to strike are usually denied unless the matter to be stricken has no possible relationship to the controversy and may prejudice the other party. See Poston v. American President Lines, Ltd., 452 F.Supp. 568, 570 (S.D. Fla. 1978) (citing Augustus v. Board of Public Instruction, 306 F.2d 862, 868 (5th Cir. 1962)). Because Aetna has not shown how it will be prejudiced by Ms. Wanza's direct submission of a proposed order to the court, and given the drastic relief of a motion to strike, Aetna's motion to compel compliance with Local Rule 7.7 and motion to strike [D.E. 25] are DENIED. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.7., Ms. Wanza shall not directly correspond with the court without a request by the court to do so.
DONE and ORDERED.