v. Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center et al

Filing 43

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 38 Motion to Strike Rejoinder; reply due 12/11/09. So Ordered by Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. (dae)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center v. Cross Country Travcorps, Inc., d/b/a Cross Country Staffing (and their affiliates), and CHG Medical Staffing, Inc., d/b/a RN Network ORDER Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center ("DHMC") brought an action against Cross Country Travcorps, Inc., doing business as Cross Country Staffing, and their affiliates (referred to collectively as "Cross Country"), and CHG Medical Staffing, Inc., doing business as RN Network ("CHG"). DHMC moved for summary The court Civil No. 09-cv-160-JD Opinion No. 2009 DNH 186

judgment on some of its claims against Cross Country.

issued a procedural order on September 17, 2009, indicating that a hearing would be held on DHMC's motion, and requiring the parties to be prepared to address several issues relevant to that motion. The hearing was held on November 17, 2009.

In the late afternoon of November 16, Cross Country filed a thirteen-page "Written Response" to the court's procedural order and appended eight exhibits. On November 25, DHMC filed an

eighteen-page "Rejoinder" to Cross Country's Written Response.

Cross Country responded with a motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), to strike DHMC's rejoinder or, in the alternative, for leave to file a reply to that rejoinder and a request for oral argument. CHG fully assented to the motion.

DHMC did not assent to the motion to strike, and filed a partial objection to that motion, but did assent to the granting of leave to file a reply. Cross Country argues that DHMC's rejoinder should be struck because equity, justice, and fundamental fairness require it; it is not a recognized pleading under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; it is an untimely attempt to expand DHMC's motion for summary judgment; and it raises numerous issues of fact and new arguments, emphasizing the need for trial. arguments is persuasive. Cross Country moved to strike pursuant to Rule 12(f), which allows the court to strike from a pleading "any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." 12(f). Fed. R. Civ. P. None of these

As Cross Country points out, DHMC's rejoinder was not a

pleading, but rather -- like Cross Country's Written Response -a filing in response to the September 17 procedural order. its terms, Rule 12(f) does not authorize the court to strike DHMC's rejoinder. Moreover, because Cross Country filed a By

written response to the procedural order, equity, justice, and 2

fundamental fairness weigh in favor of giving DHMC an opportunity to respond in writing. Because DHMC's rejoinder will not be struck and because the parties agree that Cross Country should have an opportunity to respond to DHMC's rejoinder, Cross Country's motion for leave to reply is granted. The reply shall be filed by December 11, 2009.

Finally, Cross Country's request, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d), for oral argument regarding the issues raised in DHMC's rejoinder is denied. Rule 7.1(d) requires a "written statement

by a party outlining the reasons why oral argument may provide assistance to the court." Cross Country's only justification for

its request for oral argument is that such a hearing would "fully explore the issues the rejoinder raises." Cross Country's

written reply to DHMC's rejoinder is sufficient.

Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Cross Country's motion to strike (doc. no. 38) is granted to the extent that Cross Country may

3

file a reply to DHMC's rejoinder and is otherwise denied.

Cross

Country shall file its reply on or before December 11, 2009.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. United States District Judge December 4, 2009 cc: Andrew D. Dunn, Esquire Ronald J. Lajoie, Esquire Anil Madan, Esquire Joseph Gardner Mattson, Esquire Ralph Suozzo, Esquire

4