The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
MAGNOLIA ISLAND CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-1526
PLANTATION, LLC, ET AL.
VERSUS JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.
LUCKY FAMILY, LLC, ET AL. MAGISTRATE JUDGE HAYES
MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the Court is a Motion to Strike and Alternative Motion for Leave to
Supplement (hereinafter referred to as “Motion”) filed by Plaintiffs—Magnolia Island
Plantation, LLC and Barbara Marie Carey Lollar. Record Document 132. For the reasons
set forth below, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike is hereby DENIED; however, Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Leave to Supplement is hereby GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
For purposes of the instant motion, a detailed discussion of the facts of this matter
is unnecessary. Plaintiffs move to strike Sheriff Julian Whittington’s “Revised Statement
of Undisputed Facts” (Record Document 123-4) in support of his Motion for Summary
Judgment (Record Documents 79, 92, 94, & 96). Sheriff Whittington first improperly
included his Statement of Undisputed Facts within the supporting memorandum for
summary judgment. See Record Document 79. He corrected this error in his “Amended
and Corrected Motion for Summary Judgment.” See Record Document 92-2. Sheriff
Whittington then amended his memorandum for summary judgment in order to correct
typographical errors and add exhibit labels. See Record Documents 94-4 & 96-2.
Throughout these first three versions, Sheriff Whittington’s Statement of Undisputed
Facts remained substantively the same. See id.
Plaintiffs contested the Sheriff’s factual allegations on January 21, 2020. See
Record Document 103-1. Two weeks later, Sheriff Whittington filed the Revised
Statement of Undisputed Facts at issue. See Record Document 123-4. Although the edits
made are largely cosmetic, Paragraph 8 now includes additional statements in support of
the Sheriff’s appointment of the third appraiser. See id. Plaintiffs assert they have not had
an opportunity to contest these new allegations and have filed the instant motion to secure
that opportunity. See Record Document 132. Contrarily, Defendants argue that because
the Sheriff’s additions mirror facts alleged in Mr. Lucky’s own Memorandum in Support of
Summary Judgment—a point initially brought up by Plaintiffs in the instant Motion—no
need exists to strike, or alternatively supplement. See Record Document 133.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Motion to Strike
Rule 12(f) authorizes a court to “order stricken from any pleading any insufficient
defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(f). Motions to strike are disfavored and infrequently granted. Cargo v. Kansas City
Southern Ry. Co., 2011 WL 1234567 at *1 (W.D. La. Apr. 1, 2011) (citing Augustus v.
Board of Public Instruction of Escambia County, Florida, 306 F.2d 862, 868 (5th Cir.
1962)). Granting a motion to strike is a drastic remedy to be resorted to only for the
purpose of justice and only when the pleading to be stricken has no possible relation to
the controversy. See id.
The additions to Sheriff Whittington’s Revised Statement of Undisputed Facts do
not warrant striking. They relate directly to the matter at issue in both he and Plaintiffs’
summary judgment motions. Although these revisions do essentially reiterate factual
allegations presented in Mr. Lucky’s Memorandum, because each Defendant has filed a
separate Motion for Summary Judgment, reliant on different aspects of law, Sheriff
Whittington is entitled to present his own, independent summary judgment materials. As
such, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike is DENIED.
B. Motion for Leave to Supplement
Plaintiffs’ request in the alternative for leave to supplement their earlier Statement
of Contested Facts in Opposition to Sheriff’s Motion (Record Document 103-1) is
grounded in fairness principles. Plaintiffs assert they should be allowed to respond to
Sheriff Whittington’s new allegations, while also expressing concern that if not allowed to
contest these statements, they will be deemed admitted. See Record Document 132-1.
Plaintiffs also include their proposed Supplemental Statement of Contested Facts in their
Motion. See Record Document 132-2. Defendants, examining Plaintiffs’ proposed
supplemental statement, take issue with several inclusions that they feel are conclusory
in nature. See Record Document 133.
The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that they should be allowed to contest the new
factual allegations brought by Sheriff Whittington. There is nothing to suggest that
Defendants will be at all prejudiced by Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Statement of Contested
Facts, whereas Plaintiffs would be unable to argue against the Sheriff’s allegations in their
summary judgment motion against him. The Court will rely on the specific evidence
included in each party’s summary judgment materials when evaluating these motions
separately, and as such, Plaintiffs must be afforded the opportunity to contest Sheriff
Whittington’s statements. Further, the Court will disregard any evidence it finds unsuitable
for the summary judgment stage, such as conclusory statements, when evaluating these
motions. As such, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Supplement is GRANTED.
ll. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike is hereby DENIED.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Supplement is hereby GRANTED.
An order consistent with the terms of the instant Memorandum Ruling shall issue
herewith.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in Shreveport, Louisiana, on this the 30th day of
September 2020.
“ . ;
S. MAURICE HICKS, JR., CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Page 4 of 4