The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
TAYLOR D. CLINES, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No. 4:18-CV-153 NAB
)
ST. LOUIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal or Strike Exhibit. [Doc. 125.]
Defendants Special Administrative Board of the Transitional School District of the City of St.
Louis (“SAB”) and Thamous Wooten filed a response consenting to the motion to seal and
opposing the motion to strike the exhibit. [Doc. 126.]
On December 17, 2019, Defendants SAB and Wooten filed a motion for summary
judgment. [Doc. 120.] Exhibit 3, filed in support of the motion, contains documents that include
Plaintiff Tyler Clines’ social security number and birth date. Local Rule 2.17 requires the
redaction of social security numbers and dates of birth in public filings with the court. E.D.Mo.
L.R. 2.17. Defendants assert that their inclusion without redaction was an error and consent to
the motion to seal. Therefore, the Court will grant the motion to seal Exhibit 3 in its entirety1.
Plaintiffs then alternatively request that the Court strike Exhibit 3, because its contents
are not relevant to this cause of action. The Court may strike from a pleading an insufficient
defense, or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).
Because the rule is stated in the permissive, it has always been understood that district courts
1 Exhibit 3 was sealed on the date the motion was filed to prevent disclosure during the consideration of the motion
to seal.
enjoy liberal discretion in granting the motion. Stanbury Law Firm vy. LR.S., 221 F.3d 1059,
1063 (8th Cir. 2000). “Despite this broad discretion however, striking a party’s pleadings is an
extreme measure, and as a result [the court] has previously held that motions to strike under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(f) are viewed with disfavor and are infrequently granted.” Jd. “A matter is
immaterial or impertinent when the matter is not relevant to the resolution of the pending issue.”
Century Sur. Co. v. Royston Enterprizes, LLC, No. 4:15-CV-152 RLW, 2015 WL 4635309 at *2
(E.D. Mo. Aug. 3, 2015) (citing Schmidt v. Hosley Int’l, Inc., No. 4:15-CV—614—CEJ, 2015 WL
4134338, at *2 (E.D. Mo. July 8, 2015) (citation omitted)). “Matter will not be stricken unless it
clearly can have no possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation.” Jd. (citing Haynes v.
BIS Frucon Eng’g, Inc., No. 4:08—CV—701 CAS, 2008 WL 4561462, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 10,
2008)). The information need not be strictly relevant to the cause of action and may be used to
provide context and background to a plaintiff's suit or pertain to the object of the suit. Stanbury,
221 F.3d at 1063.
Because the Court has granted the motion to seal, the Court will deny the alternative
motion to strike as moot.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal or Strike Exhibit is
GRANTED in part and DENIED as moot in part. [Doc. 125.] Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal is
GRANTED and the Clerk of Court shall seal Exhibit 3 in its entirety. [Docs. 122-3, 122-4, 122-
5.] Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Exhibit is DENIED as moot.
Ne fi Me
NANNETTE A. BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 13th day of March, 2020.