DeAngelis v. Farinella et al

Filing 25

ORDER. The plaintiffs motions to strike 20 21 22 are DENIED. The defendants motion for extension of time 24 is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 8/18/2016. (Connelly, L.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

JEFFREY DeANGELIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MONICA FARINELLA, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 3:16-cv-307 (MPS)

AUGUST 18, 2016

RULING AND ORDER
Plaintiff Jeffrey DeAngelis and filed three motions to strike directed at various defenses
asserted by the defendants. In addition, the defendants seek an extension of time to respond to
numerous discovery requests. For the reasons that follow, defendants’ motion is granted and
plaintiff’s motions are denied.
I.

Motions to Strike
The plaintiff moves to strike the First, Fourth and Fifth Affirmative Defenses included in

the Answer. Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court may strike
from “any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial or scandalous matter.”
Motions to strike are disfavored and not routinely granted. Hudson v. Babilonia, ___ F. Supp. 3d
___, 2016 WL 3264150, at *1 n.2 (D. Conn. June 14, 2016) (quoting McKinney v. Dzurenda,
No. 3:10-cv-880(AVC), 2013 WL 1296468, at *1 (D. Conn. Mar. 27, 2013)). As the moving
party, it is the plaintiff’s “burden to demonstrate prejudice by the inclusion of the alleged
offending material.” Tech-Sonic, Inc. v. Sonics & Materials, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-01376(MPS),

2015 WL 4715329, at *7 (D. Conn. Aug. 24, 2015) (quoting Holmes v. Fischer, 764 F. Supp. 2d
523, 532 (W.D.N.Y. 2011)(internal quotation marks omitted).
To prevail on a motion to strike an affirmative defense, the plaintiff must meet a
demanding standard. He “must establish that: (1) there is no question of fact that might allow the
defense to succeed; (2) there is no substantial question of law that might allow the defense to
succeed; and (3) [he]would be prejudiced by the inclusion of the defense.” New England Health
Care Emps. Welfare Fund v. iCare Mgmt., LLC, 792 F. Supp. 2d 269, 288 (D. Conn. 2011).
The defendants’ First Affirmative Defense invokes Eleventh Amendment immunity as to
any claims against them for damages in their official capacities. ECF No. 18 at 7. In his motion
to strike, the plaintiff states that he seeks damages from the defendants only in individual
capacity. As the plaintiff failed to identify in his complaint the capacity in which he seeks
damages, the defense was properly asserted.
The Fourth and Fifth Affirmative Defenses inform the Court of habeas corpus actions
previously filed by the plaintiff regarding the complaints of back pain that are the subject of this
action. In the Fourth Affirmative Defense, the defendants state that the plaintiff is barred from
relitigating any issues previously resolved in a state court action under the doctrine of res
judicata. Although the plaintiff disputes the applicability of res judicata to any issues included in
this action, the defense is properly asserted and not insufficient.
The Fifth Affirmative Defense identifies another state habeas action. In his motion to
strike, the plaintiff states that he withdrew the state habeas action. The defendants, however,
filed their answer on May 20, 2016. The plaintiff withdrew the state habeas action four days
later. See No. TSR-CV15-4007384-S, www.civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov (last visited Aug. 18, 2016).
2

Thus, the defense was properly included. Further, application of the doctrine of res judicata only
requires that the plaintiff had an opportunity to raise his claims, not that the claims actually were
litigated. See Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398 (1981).
In addition, the plaintiff has not identified any prejudice that he will suffer by inclusion of
these three affirmative defenses. The applicability of the defenses will be considered in the
course of litigation and the plaintiff may raise his claims regarding the defenses at that time. The
plaintiff’s motions to strike are denied.
II.

Motion for Extension of Time
The defendants seek a first extension of time, until October 6, 2016, to respond to

numerous discovery requests served by the plaintiff. The requests include seven sets of
interrogatories, seven sets of requests for production, and five sets of requests for admission.
Local Rule 7 requires that a party seeking an extension of time make a “particularized
showing that the time limitation in question cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the
party seeking the extension.” D. Conn. L. Civ. R. Counsel notes the volume of the requests,
scheduling difficulties during the summer with meeting with each defendant to review his or her
responses and the need for the medical defendants to obtain and review the plaintiff’s medical
records before preparing their responses. The Court considers the reasons proffered by counsel
to demonstrate good cause. The defendants’ motion for extension of time is granted.
III.

Conclusion
The plaintiff’s motions to strike [ECF Nos. 20, 21, 22] are DENIED. The defendants’

motion for extension of time [ECF No. 24] is GRANTED.

3

SO ORDERED this 18th day of August 2016 at Hartford, Connecticut.
/s/
Michael P. Shea
United States District Judge

4