Santoro v. Autozoners, LLC et al

Filing 42

ORDER. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Doc. 37) is DENIED, and Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 37) itself is hereby STRICKEN, but shall remain as filed. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 10/2/2014. (JWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
THOMAS SANTORO,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 5:13-cv-242-Oc-10PRL

AUTOZONERS, LLC
Defendant.

ORDER
This employment discrimination case comes before the Court for consideration of
“Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment Because the Reply Contains Misstatements and Mischaracterizations of Fact
and Law” (Doc. 37), to which Defendant has responded in opposition (Doc. 39).
On August 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Summary Judgment in this case. (Doc.
21). On August 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a 48-page response in opposition to the motion for
summary judgment. (Doc. 26). Then, Plaintiff belatedly filed its Motion for Leave to File a
Response in Excess of Twenty Pages in length (Doc. 27).

The Court reluctantly granted

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the lengthy response, but admonished counsel that lengthy briefs
are disfavored and would not be routinely permitted. (Doc. 29). Defendant then sought leave to
file a reply memorandum, which the Court granted, limited to fifteen pages. (Doc. 33).
Plaintiff now submits a 21-page motion to strike (Doc. 37) that, as Defendant argues, is
nothing more than a thinly veiled sur-reply brief. The Court agrees. Plaintiff does not cite a
single rule or case in support of its proposition that Defendant’s Reply should be stricken.

Plaintiff fails even to cite Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which provides that “[t]he court
may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent or
scandalous matter.” Rather, Plaintiff’s motion contains 21 pages regarding its opposition to
summary judgment, including arguments regarding disputed issues of fact related to Plaintiff’s
termination, disputed deposition testimony, and legal arguments responsive to Defendant’s reply
memorandum.
Such a brief is not permitted under the Local Rules, specifically Local Rule 3.01(c).
Indeed, Plaintiff’s motion to strike is contrary to both the spirit and letter of the Local Rules, as
well as the Court’s prior Order (Doc. 29) cautioning counsel regarding requests for excessive
extension of the page limits. Defendant requests that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike be stricken from
the record, and the Court agrees.
Accordingly, upon due consideration, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 37) is DENIED,
and Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 37) itself is hereby STRICKEN, but shall remain as filed.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on October 2, 2014.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-2-