Beacham v. Aerotek, Inc.

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 1/20/2012:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
RICHARD BEACHAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
AEROTEK, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

11 C 7936

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Oshkosh Specialty Vehicles, Inc. (“Oshkosh”) has filed its
Answer and Defenses (“ADs”) to the race discrimination Complaint
brought against it by Richard Beacham (“Beacham”).

This sua

sponte memorandum opinion and order is triggered by a repeatedly
occurring problematic aspect of that responsive pleading.
Many of the Answer’s responses (Answer ¶¶6, 7, 16-21, 23,
24, 27-38 and 42) follow an invocation of the disclaimer of some
of Beacham’s allegations--a disclaimer that tracks the language
of Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 8(b)(5)--by stating that Oshkosh
“therefore denies same.”

That is of course oxymoronic--how can a

party that asserts (presumably in good faith) that it lacks even
enough information to form a belief as to the truth of an
allegation then proceed to deny it in accordance with Rule 11(b)?
Accordingly the quoted phrase is stricken from each of those
paragraphs of the Answer.
For years this Court has been patient with lawyers who
obviously know Rule 8(b)(5) and employ its terms accurately but

who then impermissibly go on in the manner that has been
described here1--it has been a full decade since this Court
issued and published the Appendix in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D. Ill. 2001) that included
the same failing as one of the repeated errors by defense counsel
that it has encountered over the years.

But even though the sin

thus committed may be venial, forgiveness does not necessarily
follow.

Enough is enough--because it would appear that the

purported denial cannot have been advanced in the objective good
faith demanded by Rule 11(b), Oshkosh’s counsel is ordered to
show cause on or before January 30, 2012 (1) why the filing has
not violated that Rule and (2) why, if so, no sanction should be
imposed (see Rule 11(c)(3) and (4)).
To turn to Oshkosh’s ADs, two of them call for brief
comments.

Although what is said here is not intended to be

exhaustive, so that Beacham’s counsel is free to raise any other
asserted problems, ADs 1 and 5 bear specific mention:
1.

AD 1 is not truly an affirmative defense, for

Oshkosh’s Answer ¶3 had already denied its employment of
Beacham for Title VII purposes--in that respect, see App’x
¶5 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D.
276, 279 (N.D. Ill. 2001).

Accordingly AD 1 is stricken

1

By chance, today’s filings in this Court’s chambers
include one by another lawyer who has committed the same offense.
2

(having put the matter in issue, Oshkosh suffers no loss
thereby).
2.

AD 5, which asserts Oshkosh’s right of

indemnification by codefendant Aerotek, Inc., is not of
course a defense to Beacham’s claim against it.

That AD is

also stricken.

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

January 20, 2012

3