Cummings v. Bradley

Filing 31

ORDER denying 23 motion to strike. Signed by Judge Alfred V. Covello on March 19, 2013. (Gentile, N.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
TIMOTHY CUMMINGS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL BRADLEY,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 3:11cv00751(AVC)

RULING ON THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE
The defendant’s motion to strike portions of the affidavits
and statement of material facts filed with the plaintiff’s
opposition to summary judgment is denied. Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), a court may strike “any
insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent,
or scandalous matter” from a party’s pleading. Such motions are
disfavored. See, e.g, Hathaway Motors, Inc. v. General Motors
Corp., 19 F.R.D. 359, 360 (D. Conn. 1955) (“Motions to strike . .
. are in disfavor”); D’Agostino v. Housing Authority of City of
Waterbury, No. 3:05cv1057 (PCD), 2006 WL 1821355, at *2 (D. Conn.
June 30, 2006) (recognizing that “motions to strike are generally
disfavored”); Wright & Miller, Fed. Practice & Procedure § 1380
(“[M]otions under Rule 12(f) are viewed with disfavor by the
federal courts and are infrequently granted.”). “Most
importantly, Rule 12(f) allows a court to strike pleadings only.
Declarations and affidavits are not pleadings.” Ricci v.
Destefano, No. 3:04 CV 1109 (JBA), 2006 WL 2666081, at *1 (D.

Conn. Sept. 15, 2006) (internal quotations and citations
omitted). It is inappropriate for a court to strike material
contained in exhibits to motions. Ricci, 2006 WL 2666081, at *1.
See also Monroe v. Board of Ed. of Town of Wolcott, 65 F.R.D.
641, 645 (D. Conn.1975) (recognizing that “[a] rule 12(f) motion
to strike is not strictly proper in this instance, for the record
of the . . . hearing [attached to opposition to summary judgment]
is not a ‘pleading.’”).
Even if the court were to construe the affidavits as
“pleadings,” a motion to strike is improper with respect to
summary judgment. “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not
explicitly allow motions to strike in the context of summary
judgment.” Ferraresso v. Town of Granby, 646 F. Supp.2d 296, 301
(D. Conn. 2009). Specifically, “Rule 56, which governs summary
judgment, does not provide a ‘motion to strike’ as a tool in the
summary judgment process.” Ferraresso, 646 F. Supp.2d at 301.
Rather, Rule 56(c) provides a means to object to inadmissible
evidence referenced by the opposing party as follows: “A party
may object that the material cited [by the party’s opponent] to
support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that
would be admissible in evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Federal
Rule 56(c) thus contemplates that the parties will flag for the
court material cited by opposing counsel which is not admissible,

2

and hence not properly considered on summary judgment.
Accordingly, the motion to strike is DENIED.
It is so ordered this 19th day of March 2013, at Hartford,
Connecticut.
_______/s/_________________
Alfred V. Covello, U.S.D.J.

3