Scott v. UAW Solidarity House et al
OPINION AND ORDER: GRANTS 81 RULE 12(f) MOTION to Strike 77 Response to Discovery (Plaintiff's "Duty to Disclose, General Provision Governing Discovery and the Right to Evidence Discloser") by Defendant UAW Solidarity House. The cou rt STRIKES Scott's Duty to Disclose, General Provision Governing Discovery and the Right to Evidence Discloser 77 . DENIES 79 MOTION for Hearing by Plaintiff David A Scott, Jr and DENIES AS MOOT 83 RULE 12(f) MOTION to Strike 79 MOTION for Hearing by Defendant UAW Solidarity House. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew P Rodovich on 12/19/2016. (lhc)(cc: Plaintiff)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
DAVID A. SCOTT, JR.,
UAW SOLIDARITY HOUSE, b/k/a
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE and
WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW,
Cause No. 2:14-cv-106
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the Motion for Hearing [DE 79] filed by the plaintiff,
David A. Scott Jr., on November 10, 2016, the Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s “Duty to Disclose,
General Provision Governing Discovery and the Right to Evidence Discloser” [DE 81] filed by
the defendant, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, UAW on November 21, 2016, and the Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion
for Hearing [DE 83] filed by International Union on November 22, 2016. For the following
reasons, the Motion for Hearing [DE 79] is DENIED, the Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s “Duty to
Disclose, General Provision Governing Discovery and the Right to Evidence Discloser” [DE 81]
is GRANTED, and the Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Hearing [DE 83] is DENIED as
David A. Scott Jr. filed an employment discrimination Complaint against International
Union on April 4, 2014, alleging wrongful termination, sex and disability discrimination,
retaliation, and harassment. Scott also has filed an employment discrimination Complaint
against his former employer Lear Corporation. The two cases are combined for discovery
Heather Falks, of the firm Stewart & Stewart, entered her appearance on behalf of Scott
on March 25, 2015. Falks filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, and a hearing was held before
Judge Jon DeGuilio to address Falks’ motion. The motion was granted. Scott was unable to
obtain new counsel and is currently proceeding pro se, therefore, under N.D. Ind. L.R. 262(a)(2)(A) all discovery in cases involving a pro se party must be filed with the court.
International Union indicated at the status conference held on September 27, 2016, that it
provided Scott with all the discovery that previously was given to attorney Falks. A discovery
deadline of December 30, 2016 was set along with a briefing schedule. On November 3, 2016,
Scott filed Duty to Disclose, General Provisions Governing Discovery and the Right to Evidence
Discloser [DE 77]. Scott has represented that he wanted to make the court aware that his rights
continue to be violated with equal and fair representation and with the defendants’ discovery. It
details meetings with former attorney Falks and argues that the defendants, Lear and
International Union, have provided insufficient discovery. He contends that International Union
and Lear have failed to provide the same discovery that was provided to Falks.
International Union has requested that the court strike Scott’s Duty to Disclose, General
Provision Governing Discovery and the Right to Evidence Discloser. It is important to note
Scott’s filing is not styled as a motion. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) states that “the
court may strike from a pleading any ... redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter.” Motions to strike are generally disfavored, although they may be granted if they remove
unnecessary clutter from a case and expedite matters, rather than delay them. Heller Financial,
Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., Inc., 883 F.2d 1286, 1294 (7th Cir. 1989); Shirley v. Jed Capital,
LLC., 2010 WL 2721855, *5 (N.D. Ill. 2010); Doe v. Brimfield Grade School, 552 F.Supp.2d
816, 825 (C.D. Ill. 2008). The decision whether to strike material is within the discretion of the
court. Talbot v. Robert Matthews Distrib. Co., 961 F.2d 654, 665 (7th Cir. 1992). “Motions to
strike under Federal Rule 12(f) are not favored and are usually denied unless the language in the
pleading has no possible relation to the controversy and is clearly prejudicial.” Tektel, Inc. v.
Maier, 813 F.Supp. 1331, 1334 (N.D. Ill. 1992).
International Union has argued that Scott’s Duty to Disclose, General Provision
Governing Discovery and the Right to Evidence Discloser is primarily concerned with Scott’s
issues with former attorney Falks. Therefore, the allegations made against Falks are not properly
before the court and are redundant, immaterial, and impertinent. International Union contends
that Scott was given an opportunity to address these issues at the June 29, 2016 hearing before
Judge Jon DeGuilio. An employment discrimination complaint is before the court, so this is not
the proper forum to raise allegations against Falks.
Also, International Union contends that Scott addresses his issues with Lear, which have
no bearing on the Complaint against International Union. Scott contends that International
Union has failed to provide truthful discovery. However, International Union argues that when
Scott filed his Duty to Disclose, General Provision Governing Discovery and the Right to
Evidence Discloser there were no pending discovery request. Therefore, the pleading contains
immaterial and impertinent information regarding discovery materials Scott believes he is
entitled to receive.
International Union has indicated that the pleading contains scandalous information,
including Scott’s allegation that Falks, International Union, Lear, and their counsels have
improperly colluded to violate Scott’s rights. International Union represents that these
allegations are baseless and not pertinent to the complaint and reflect cruelly on it and counsel.
Finally, the allegations made by Scott are not proximately related or relevant to the Complaint
against International Union.
In light of these observations, the court finds that the allegations are immaterial and
impertinent to the matter. Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 26-2 states that discovery
shall not be filed except under certain circumstances, including when one of the parties is a pro
se litigant. Under this circumstance, all discovery involving the pro se party must be filed. The
only documents that should be filed are discovery requests as laid out in the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, including interrogatories, requests for admissions, requests for production, and
the like, and the responses thereto. Therefore, the court STRIKES Scott’s Duty to Disclose,
General Provision Governing Discovery and the Right to Evidence Discloser [DE 77].
Based on the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS the Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s
“Duty to Disclose, General Provision Governing Discovery and the Right to Evidence Discloser”
[DE 81]. Scott has not requested relief from the court, therefore, the court sees no reason to hold
a hearing in this matter. The Motion for Hearing [DE 79] is DENIED. Because the court has
denied the plaintiff’s Motion for a Hearing, the defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion
for Hearing [DE 83] is DENIED as MOOT.
ENTERED this 19th day of December, 2016.
/s/ Andrew P. Rodovich
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?