Fernandez v. Duarte
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Valerie E. Torres (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's motion to strike discovery documents that the defendant had lodged with the court for in camera review pursuant to a prior order, and a related motion for sanctions. The court denied both motions, finding that the documents were not subject to striking under Rule 12(f) and that the defendant's compliance with the court's order did not warrant sanctions.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion to Strike“As such, there is technically nothing for the Court to strike from the record... Accordingly, the Court declines to strike documents that it ordered Defendant to provide for purposes of evaluating his privilege claims.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which limits motions to strike to pleadings. The documents in question were lodged for in camera review pursuant to a specific court order, not filed as part of a pleading. Furthermore, striking documents that the court itself ordered to be produced for review would be illogical and contrary to the court's own directive. The reliance on *Sidney-Vinstein* and *Gaines* is appropriate for this procedural posture. |
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions“In doing so, Defendant did not engage in any sanctionable conduct. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff's request for sanctions.” | agree with court Sanctions are generally reserved for conduct that is frivolous, abusive, or in bad faith. Here, the defendant was acting in direct compliance with a court order to lodge documents for in camera review. There is no basis in the record provided to suggest that this compliance was sanctionable. The court's conclusion follows logically from the facts that the action was court-ordered. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies that Rule 12(f) applies to pleadings, not discovery documents lodged for in camera review. It also correctly notes that the defendant was complying with a court order, which negates any claim of sanctionable conduct. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the plaintiff's arguments based on the record provided.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANK J. FERNANDEZ, Case No.: 3:22-cv-00446-BAS-VET 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 14 E. DUARTE, 15 Defendant. [Doc. No. 110] 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Notice of Lodging of 18 Discovery Documents Subject to Information Privilege and Motion for Sanctions 19 (“Motion”). For the reasons detailed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on a First 22 Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Duarte. Doc. Nos. 8. at 7; 9 at 24. On 23 October 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery, requesting that 24 Defendant produce certain discovery documents. Doc. No. 81. On October 22, 2024, 25 Defendant filed a timely Opposition, asserting the official information privilege in 26 response to Plaintiff’s requests for production. Doc. No. 83 at 10. Subsequently, this 27 Court ordered that Defendant lodge all unredacted and redacted versions of the 28 documents withheld pursuant to the official information privilege (“Documents”) for in 1 camera review according to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii). Doc. No. 95 at 2. On 2 February 7, 2025, Defendant lodged the Documents with the Court and filed a Notice of 3 Lodging of Documents Subject to Official Information Privilege. See Doc. No. 103. 4 Plaintiff now requests that the Court strike the lodged Documents and sanction 5 Defendant. Doc. No. 110 at 1-2. 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 A. Motion to Strike 8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that a “court may strike from a 9 pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or 10 scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(f); Gaines v. AT&T Mobility Servs., LLC, 424 11 F. Supp 3d 1004, 1014 (S.D. Cal. 2019). Motions to strike are regarded with disfavor, in 12 part, “because they are often used as a delaying tactic.” Neilson v. Union Bank of Cal., 13 N.A., 290 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1152 (C.D. Cal. 2003). “Given their disfavored status, courts 14 often require a showing of prejudice by the moving party before granting the requested 15 relief.” Id. “Ultimately, whether to grant a motion to strike lies within the sound 16 discretion of the district court.” Serafin v. Realmark Holdings, LLC, No. 23-cv-03275- 17 PCP, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6972, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2024) 18 As an initial matter, the Court notes that the Documents are not part of any 19 pleading in the record. Nor were the Documents filed on the public docket as the 20 Documents were lodged with the undersigned’s chambers. Doc. No. 103. As such, there 21 is technically nothing for the Court to strike from the record. See Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. 22 Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that “only pleadings are subject to 23 motions to strike” and noting the absence of any cases construing Rule 12(f) “as allowing 24 a district court to strike material not contained in the pleadings of the case”). Still, even if 25 part of the record, there is no basis to strike the Documents. Defendant lodged the 26 Documents to comply with a Court order. See Doc. No. 95 at 2. Specifically, the Court 27 requested the Documents for the purpose of conducting an in-camera review to decide 28 Defendant’s official information privilege claims. Id. By lodging the Documents, 1 || Defendant was responding to the Court’s order. Accordingly, the Court declines to strike 2 ||documents that it ordered Defendant to provide for purposes of evaluating his privilege 3 ||claims. Gaines, 424 F. Supp. 3d at 1014 (“motions to strike are generally not granted 4 |/unless it is clear that the matter sought to be stricken could have no possible bearing on 5 || the subject matter of the litigation”). 6 B. Motion for Sanctions 7 Plaintiff requests that “sanctions be put on defendant for filing [the Documents] in 8 faith.” Doc. No. 110 at 2. As already explained, Defendant filed the Documents in 9 || response to this Court’s order. In doing so, Defendant did not engage in any sanctionable 10 || conduct. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff's request for sanctions. 11 || UL CONCLUSION 12 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion in its entirety. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED.
15 Dated: Mareh 24, 2029 Honorable Valerie E. Torres 16 United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28