Rabang et al v. Kelly et al

Filing 181

ORDER denying Defendants' 176 Motion to Strike signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

MARGRETTY RABANG et al.,

10
11
12

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. C17-0088-JCC
ORDER

v.
ROBERT KELLY, JR., et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to strike (Dkt. No. 176).

16

Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral

17

argument unnecessary and hereby DENIES the motion for the reasons explained herein.

18

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), a district court “may strike from a pleading

19

an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” “[T]he

20

function of a 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise

21

from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial . . . .” Sidney–

22

Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983).

23

This case is currently on appeal before the Ninth Circuit, which stayed the appeal

24

pending the outcome of the appeal in Doucette v. Zinke, Case No. 2:18-cv-0859-TSZ (W.D.

25

Wash.). (See Dkt. No. 174.) On January 29, 2020, Plaintiffs provided notice that they had filed a

26

Rule 62.1 motion for indicative ruling on Plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b) and 15(a)(2) motions filed in
ORDER
C17-0088-JCC
PAGE - 1

1
2

Doucette v. Bernhardt, Case No. 2:18-cv-0859-TSZ (W.D. Wash.). (Dkt. No. 175.)
Defendants now move to strike Plaintiffs’ notice. (Dkt. No. 176.) Plaintiff’s notice

3

informs this Court of activity in a related case and references previously undisclosed emails

4

between the Department of Interior’s new Nooksack special election point-person and the Tribal

5

Council’s lobbyist. (See Dkt. No. 175.) Defendants contend that the Court should strike the

6

notice because it excerpts the emails in a misleading way that casts an excessively adverse light

7

on the Kelly Defendants. (See Dkt. No. 176 at 3.) Based on the present briefing, the Court is not

8

persuaded that the material in the notice is so impertinent or scandalous that it should be stricken.

9

See Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 12(f). Nor is there any indication that Plaintiffs’ notice would give rise to

10

litigation of “spurious issues.” Sidney–Vinstein, 697 F.2d at 885. Therefore, Defendants’ motion

11

to strike (Dkt. No. 176) is DENIED.

12

DATED this 7th day of April 2020.

A

13
14
15

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
C17-0088-JCC
PAGE - 2