Willis v. The United States of America

Filing 17

RULING denying 14 Motion to Strike 13 Defts Answer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 3/8/2012. (JDL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ALBERT L. WILLIS AND
PAULINE WILLIS
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 11-708-BAJ-SCR
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ET AL
RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER
Before

the

court

is

the

plaintiffs’

Motion

to

Strike

Defendants’ Insufficient and Immaterial Answers to Plaintiffs’
Complaint.

Record document number 14.

The motion is opposed.1

Rule 8(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., permits a party to respond to the
allegations in a complaint with a general or a specific denial, or
by admitting that some are true and denying others.

Denials must

be made in good faith.

Rule 12(f),

Rule 8(b)(3) and (4).

Fed.R.Civ.P., provides, in relevant part, as follows: “The court
may

strike

from

a

pleading

an

insufficient

defense

or

any

redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.”
In their answer, defendants United States of America and the
Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security
asserted five specific defenses.2

Plaintiffs’ motion does not

explain how any of the first four defenses is insufficient, as a

1

Record document number 16.

2

Record document number 13, pp. 2-3.

matter of fact or law.

Defendants’ Fifth Defense simply asserts

that factual allegations in the plaintiffs’ complaint which are not
expressly admitted are denied. Defendants’ answer does not contain
any “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.”
Plaintiffs’

Complaint

named

as

defendants

both

federal

agencies and individuals, and alleged numerous specific facts.

In

their answer the defendants admitted some of the plaintiffs’
allegations and specifically or generally denied others.
The answer is intended to give a plaintiff notice of the facts
which will need to be established by proof; it is not intended to
carry a plaintiff’s burden of proof.

When knowledge of a specific

fact cannot be ascertained with modest effort, and within the time
a party has to answer, a denial based on lack of sufficient
knowledge or information is appropriate.3
Plaintiffs

have not shown that the Secretary of the United

States Department of Homeland Security has first-hand knowledge of
sufficient

information,

or

other

information

upon

which

she

reasonably could form a personal belief, concerning the truth of
the plaintiffs’ allegations which were denied. Defendants denials,
both

general

and

specific,

are

sufficient

under

Rule

8(b),

Fed.R.Civ.P.
Accordingly,

plaintiffs’

Motion

3

to

Strike

Defendants’

See Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil
3d, §§ 1261, 1262.
2

Insufficient and Immaterial Answers to Plaintiffs’ Complaint is
denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, March 8, 2012.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3