denying a motion to strike a motion for sanctions because “a motion is not a pleading, and thus a motion to strike a motion is not proper under [Rule] 12(f)” (alteration adopted) (quotation omitted)
How later courts described this case
- denying a motion to strike a motion for sanctions because “a motion is not a pleading, and thus a motion to strike a motion is not proper under [Rule] 12(f)” (alteration adopted) (quotation omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
JOHNNIE LLOYD,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 6:25-cv-00381-PGB-NWH
AMERICAN FREEDOM
DISTILLERY, LLC, FLORIDA
ENTITY; PRESIDENT JOHN
KOKO, INDIVIDUAL; CFO SEAN
RUMP, INDIVIDUAL; ATTORNEY
RANDOLPH WOLFE,
INDIVIDUAL; AND BOARD
MEMBER NIKHIL PATEL,
INDIVIDUAL;
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (the “Motion”)
(Doc. 54) and Defendants’ Response in Opposition (Doc. 61). The Motion seeks to
strike “improper and racially coded terminology contained in Defendants’ Initial
Disclosures,” specifically the use of the phrase “disgruntled former employee.”
(Doc. 54 at 1-2).
Motions to strike are disfavored and such motions are routinely denied by
courts in this district. See Somerville v. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 6:24-CV-
2185-JSS-UAM, 2025 WL 1167802, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 22, 2025) (citing cases).
Plaintiff cites to Rule 12(f), “Model Rule 8.4(g)” and Federal Rule of Evidence 403
in support for the Motion, but the Court construes the Motion as a motion to strike
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). See Lineberry v. Copart, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-
1442-HES-LLL, 2025 WL 325538, at *1 n.2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 29, 2025) (construing
pro se motion to strike as proceeding under Rule 12). “Rule 12(f) motions to strike
other filings (such as other motions, responses, or exhibits) are routinely denied as
improper.” Pyzynski v. Thomas & Betts Corp., No. 6:16-cv-1998-Orl-40DCI, 2017 WL
9510591, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2017); accord Morroni v. Gunderson, 169 F.R.D.
168, 170 (M.D. Fla. 1996) (denying a motion to strike a motion for sanctions because
“a motion is not a pleading, and thus a motion to strike a motion is not proper under
[Rule] 12(f)” (alteration adopted) (quotation omitted)). Motions to strike under Rule
12(f) are limited to “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter[s].”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). See also Carlson Corp. / Southeast v. School Board of Seminole
County, Florida, 778 F. Supp. 518, 519 (M.D. Fla. 1991) (explaining that “[m]otions
to strike on the grounds of insufficiency, immateriality, irrelevancy, and redundancy
are not favored, often being considered ‘time wasters,’ and will usually be denied
unless the allegations have no possible relation to the controversy and may cause
prejudice to one of the parties.”).
The Motion must be denied for at least two reasons. First, it is not directed to
a pleading, but to initial disclosures. Even if initial disclosures were pleadings subject
to Rule 12(f), and they are not, there is nothing for the Court to strike from the
record because the initial disclosures were not filed. Second, although the phrase
“disgruntled former employee” is an argumentative characterization, it is not the sort
of redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter reserved for motions to
strike. Of course, this order is without prejudice to Plaintiffs ability to object to this
characterization at trial. It is therefore,
ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Strike (Doc. 54) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, this 13" day of August, 2025.
/
NATHAN W. HILL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties