Opinion
C21-0847JLR
12-16-2022
VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WASHINGTON SQUARE HOTEL HOLDINGS LLC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
JAMES L. ROBART UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
Before the court is Defendant Washington Square Hotel Holdings LLC's (“WSHH”) motion to strike a portion of a declaration of Austin Rainwater. (See Mot. (Dkt. # 63); see also 11/18/22 Rainwater Decl. (Dkt. # 60).) Plaintiffs Valley Forge Insurance Company and Continental Casualty Company (collectively, “Valley Forge”) do not oppose the motion. (See generally Dkt.) The court has considered WSHH's submissions, the balance of the record, and applicable law. Being fully advised,the court DENIES WSHH's motion.
WSHH does not request oral argument (see Mot. at 1), and the court finds that oral argument would not be helpful to its disposition of the motion, see Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(4).
II. BACKGROUND
Mr. Rainwater serves as counsel for Valley Forge in this matter. (See 11/18/22 Rainwater Decl. ¶ 1.) WSHH asks the court to strike a paragraph in Mr. Rainwater's November 18, 2022 declaration (and references thereto in Valley Forge's pleadings) that, according to WSHH, inaccurately states that WSHH produced an incomplete privilege log in discovery. (See Mot. at 2 (first citing 11/18/22 Rainwater Decl. ¶ 3; and then citing Valley Forge Reply to MTC (Dkt. # 59) at 4).) Specifically, Mr. Rainwater asserts that WSHH's privilege log omits one of the email chains at issue in the parties' underlying discovery dispute. (See 11/18/22 Rainwater Decl. ¶ 3 (stating WSHH produced the email chain identified as WSHH194970-71 in discovery but did not list it in the privilege log).) WSHH points out, however, that its privilege log lists the identified email chain as part of a longer thread of emails. (See id. ¶ 2, Ex. 11 at 3 (listing the email chain identified as WSHH194969-71).) Counsel for WSHH asked Mr. Rainwater to retract his declaration, but Mr. Rainwater refused. (See Clapham Decl. (Dkt. # 64) ¶¶ 2-4, Exs. 1-3.) WSHH then filed the instant motion asking the court to strike these statements because they are “incorrect and impugn[] Washington Square.” (Mot. at 1.)
The court detailed the procedural background of this case in its July 7, 2022 order regarding Plaintiffs' second motion for summary judgment on WSHH counterclaims (see 7/7/22 Order (Dkt. # 46) (denying Valley Forge's motion without prejudice so the parties can conduct discovery)) and described the factual and procedural background of the underlying discovery dispute in its order on Valley Forge's motion to compel (see 12/1/22 Order (Dkt. # 65) (denying in part Valley Forge's motion and ordering in camera review of disputed documents)). The court need not repeat this history here and instead discusses only the procedural background relevant to the instant motion.
III. ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) allows a court to “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f); see also Cobell v. Norton, 224 F.R.D. 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2004) (noting that, for the purposes of Rule 12(f), affidavits and declarations may also be considered “pleadings”). An affidavit may be stricken as “scandalous” if “the matter . . . may cause prejudice to the objecting party.” Sirois v. East West Partners, Inc., 285 F.Supp.3d 1152, 1162 (D. Haw. 2018) (quoting Talbot v. Robert Matthews Distrib., Co., 961 F.2d 654-65 (7th Cir. 1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted) (declining to strike material that merely painted the objecting party in a “derogatory light.”). “Motions to strike are generally regarded with disfavor because of the limited importance of pleading in federal practice, and because they are often used as a delaying tactic.” Cal. Dep't of Toxic Substances Control v. Alco Pac., Inc., 217 F.Supp.2d 1028, 1032-33 (C.D. Cal. 2002); see also Harris v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 303 F.R.D. 625, 628-29 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (finding it “more likely the parties and the court have already needlessly expended more resources on this motion,” than any party will save if the motion to strike is granted).
Although the court agrees that the statement in Mr. Rainwater's declaration regarding WSHH's privilege log is inaccurate, the court is not persuaded that the inaccurate material contained in Mr. Rainwater's declaration causes prejudice to WSHH. Mr. Rainwater's refusal to retract the erroneous material is concerning but his misstatement does nothing more than indirectly paint WSHH in a derogatory light and therefore need not be stricken by the court. See Sirois, 285 F.Supp.3d at 1162.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES WSHH's motion to strike (Dkt. # 63), and again urges the parties to refrain from filing motions that do not merit court intervention going forward (see 12/15/22 Order (Dkt. # 68) at 6).