Beshenich Muir & Associates, LLC v. Bravura Information Technology Systems, Inc.

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 10 Defendant's unopposed motion to strike; striking Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the complaint; striking Exhibit C to the complaint. Signed by Judge Brendan Abell Hurson on 1/6/2025. (kk5s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
BESHENICH MUIR & ASSOCIATES, LLC,
Plaintiff,

*

BRAVURA INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, INC.,

*

Civil No. 24-1417-BAH

*
*

Defendant.
*

*
*

v.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Beshenich Muir & Associates, LLC, brought suit against Bravura Information
Technology Systems, Inc., alleging breach of contract and related claims. ECF 1. Pending before
the Court is Defendant’s motion to strike paragraphs 13 and 14 of the complaint, as well as Exhibit
C to the complaint, a letter dated March 19, 2024 sent by Plaintiff’s counsel to defense counsel.
ECF 10. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion to strike, and the time to do so has long since
passed. Defendant argues that the challenged paragraphs and exhibit should be stricken as they
contain settlement discussions which are immaterial and impertinent to the underlying claims and
are inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 408. See ECF 10, at 2–3. The Court has reviewed the motion
and finds that no hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2023). Accordingly, for the
reasons stated below, Defendant’s motion to strike is GRANTED.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), “[t]he court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense
or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” While “Rule 12(f) motions are
disfavored and ‘generally will be not granted [for immateriality] unless the challenged allegations
have no possible or logical connection to the subject matter of the controversy and may cause some

form of significant prejudice to a party,’” they may “be granted when the movant meets its burden
of proving that the challenged material is immaterial and prejudicial.” Fitchett v. Spartech, LLC,
634 F. Supp. 3d 241, 243 (D. Md. 2022) (alteration in Fitchett) (first quoting Gilman & Bedigian,
LLC v. Sackett, 337 F.R.D. 113, 117 (D. Md. 2020), then citing Chapman v. Duke Energy
Carolinas, LLC, Civ. No. 3:09-37RJC, 2009 WL 1652463, at *3 (W.D.N.C. June 11, 2009)).
“[C]ourts in the Fourth Circuit have concluded that factual allegations within a plaintiff’s
complaint may be properly considered immaterial and prejudicial where they allege evidence of
settlement negotiations in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 408.” Sharestates Invs., LLC, v.
WFG Nat’l Title Ins. Co., Civ. No. 23 -01416-JMC, 2023 WL 8436159, at *2 (D. Md. Dec. 5,
2023) (citations omitted). Fed. R. Evid. 408(a) proscribes the admission of settlement negotiations
“either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior
inconsistent statement or a contradiction.” 1
Plaintiff does not dispute Defendant’s contention that paragraphs 13 and 14 of the
complaint contain “settlement discussions regarding [Defendant’s] position and compromise to
avoid litigation.” ECF 10, at 2. These paragraphs contain allegations that would be inadmissible
under Fed. R. Evid. 408, and such discussions are immaterial to Plaintiff’s claims and prejudicial
to Defendant. As such, these paragraphs shall be stricken from the complaint pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(f) and Fed. R. Evid. 408. Plaintiff also does not dispute that the letter between counsel
attached to the complaint as Exhibit C, contains settlement negotiations inadmissible under Fed.
R. Evid. 408. While trial is not yet scheduled, the Court may nevertheless strike this exhibit at this
stage of the proceeding. See Fitchett, 634 F. Supp. 3d at 243 (citing Chancey v. N. Am. Trade

1

Fed. R. Evid. 408(b) contains an exception if the evidence is to be admitted “for another purpose,
such as proving a witness’s bias or prejudice, negating a contention of undue delay, or proving an
effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.”
2

Sch., Civ. No. WDQ-10-0032, 2010 WL 4781306, at *3 (D. Md. Nov. 17, 2010), aff’d sub nom.
Chancey v. N. Am. Trade Sch., Inc., 442 F. App'x 815, at *2–3 (4th Cir. 2011)) (striking exhibits
attached to the complaint and rejecting plaintiff’s argument that the motion to strike was a
premature motion in limine where defendant had timely filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) motion to
strike). As such, Exhibit C to the complaint, ECF 1, at 14–15, will also be stricken pursuant to
Fed. R. Evid. 408.
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that:
(1) Defendant’s unopposed motion to strike, ECF 10, is GRANTED;
(2) Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the complaint, ECF 1, are STRICKEN; and
(3) Exhibit C to the complaint, ECF 1, at 14–15, is STRICKEN.
Dated: January 6, 2025

/s/
Brendan A. Hurson
United States District Judge

3