Yontz v. Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc.

Filing 8

ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT, DOLE FRESH VEGETABLES, INC.'S MOTION TO STRIKE SPECIFIC PARAGRAPHS IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT. (DOC. 7 ). Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 6/10/13. (kje1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

Jeffrey S. Yontz
Plaintiff,
v.
Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc.,
Defendant,
:

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE No. 3-13-cv-066
JUDGE THOMAS M. ROSE

ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT, DOLE FRESH VEGETABLES, INC.’S
MOTION TO STRIKE SPECIFIC PARAGRAPHS IN PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT.
(DOC. 7).

Pending before the Court is Defendant, Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc.’s Motion to Strike
Specific Paragraphs in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Doc. 7. The Court finds Plaintiff's response
unnecessary to disposition of the motion, and proceeds to ruling without the need for a hearing or
Plaintiff's response.
Plaintiff, Jeffrey S. Yontz, claims that Defendant has violated rights afforded him under
the Family Medical Leave Act. Plaintiff’s complaint asserts, inter alia, that Plaintiff filed a
complaint with the United States Department of Labor alleging that Dole violated his rights
under the FMLA, doc. 1 at ¶ 38, that the Department of Labor found that Defendant had violated
the FMLA, id. at ¶ 47, and these alleged facts support a finding that Defendant willfully violated
the FMLA, id. at ¶¶ 54, 56, 78 and that defendant retaliated for Plaintiff’s assertion of FMLA
rights. Id., at ¶ 55.
Defendant now moves the Court to strike these assertions under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(f) as scandalous. Defendant informs the Court that a Defendant making such a
1

motion “must demonstrate that no evidence in support of the allegation would be admissible, that
the allegations have no bearing on the issues in the case, and that to permit the allegations to
stand would result in prejudice to the movant.” Doc. 7 at 5 (quoting Berke v. Presstek, Inc., 188
F.R.D. 179, 180 (D.N.H. 1998).
Defendant’s memorandum in support then proceeds to argue administrative law minutia
as to the degree of trustworthiness of the Department of Labor investigation. Defendant also
cites to an unpublished district court opinion concerning an allegation so scandalous that the
district court avoids revealing its nature and grants an unopposed motion to strike the allegations
at the summary judgment stage. Doc. 7 at 6 (citing Ritenour v. Tennessee Dept. of Human
Services, 2010 WL 3928514 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 4, 2010).
In the instant case, the very fact that Defendant argues the degree of trustworthiness to be
afforded the Department of Labor’s investigation highlights that the matter potentially has a
bearing on the issues in the case, however small. Moreover, the Court perceives nothing
particularly scandalous in Plaintiff’s complaint. Defendant has put forward arguments regarding
the relevance of the Department of Labor report that are better resolved in motions for summary
judgment or motions in limine.
For the reasons stated in Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s Motion to
Strike Specific Paragraphs in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant’s Motion to Strike Specific
Paragraphs in Plaintiff’s Complaint, doc. 7, is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, Monday, June 10, 2013.
s/Thomas M. Rose
_______________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2