BROWN v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

S.D. Indiana

BROWN v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

DecidedJanuary 4, 2024

Docket1:22-cv-01272

StatusUnknown

This text of BROWN v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS (BROWN v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BROWN v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, (S.D. Ind. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

JOE L. BROWN, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:22-cv-01272-JRS-CSW ) CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS DEPARTMENT ) OF PUBLIC WORKS, ) TERRY GEORGE, ) JERRY SCARBROUGH, ) RENEE SHAWHAN, ) STEVE PRUITT, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE This matter is before the Court on the Parties’ Joint Motion to Strike. (Dkt. 29). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), “the parties request that [the Complaint], filed June 27, 2022, and [the Answer], filed February 2, 2023, be stricken from the record.” (Dkt. 29 at 1). Having reviewed the submission and relevant law, the motion is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Rule 12(f) allows motions to strike to be filed “either before responding to the pleading or, if a response is not allowed, within 21 days after being served with the pleading.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)(2). The parties’ motion comes over eighteen (18) months since the complaint was filed and more than eleven (11) months since the answer was filed. Therefore, it is not timely. Even if it was, however, substantively, the motion wants for lack of justification and analysis. Rule 12(f) provides: “The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” The parties have not made a sufficient showing – or any showing at all – that Complaint and the Answer are “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, and/or scandalous.” Indeed, a Complaint and Answer are the very basis of a lawsuit, including this one. Therefore, the parties have failed to show they are entitled to the requested relief. Moreover, the requested relief — to strike from the record the Complaint and Answer — may not be relief available to the parties, even if the parties have so agreed in their settlement agreement. The Court is mindful that good cause is required to seal any part of the record in a case, and the parties’ requested relief, without more explanation or analysis, approaches running afoul of these concerns. See Citizens First Nat. Bank v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 948 (7th Cir. 1999). That is, even if the Court were to accept the parties’ proposed order granting their motion to strike, doing so would not automatically have the effect of removing “certain filings from the public record to remove certain information and allegations from the public docket,” which is the parties’ stated intent. (Dkt. 29 at 1). For all of these reasons, the parties’ motion is denied. To the extent parties wish to renew their motion, they may do so by submitting an amended motion and a brief summarizing relevant authorities in support of the requested relief by January 19, 2024. SO ORDERED.

Date: January 4, 2024 VAG Crystal S. Wildeman United States Magistrate Judge oo Southern District of Indiana Distribution: JOE L. BROWN, JR. 5410 E. 19th St. Indianapolis, IN 46218 (317) 993-6128 PRO SE

Mathew Rayman OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS 200 E. Washington Street

Suite 1601 Indianapolis, IN 46204

Michael Brian Coppinger , II 200 East Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46220

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

JOE L. BROWN, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:22-cv-01272-JRS-CSW ) CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS DEPARTMENT ) OF PUBLIC WORKS, ) TERRY GEORGE, ) JERRY SCARBROUGH, ) RENEE SHAWHAN, ) STEVE PRUITT, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE This matter is before the Court on the Parties’ Joint Motion to Strike. (Dkt. 29). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), “the parties request that [the Complaint], filed June 27, 2022, and [the Answer], filed February 2, 2023, be stricken from the record.” (Dkt. 29 at 1). Having reviewed the submission and relevant law, the motion is hereby DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Rule 12(f) allows motions to strike to be filed “either before responding to the pleading or, if a response is not allowed, within 21 days after being served with the pleading.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)(2). The parties’ motion comes over eighteen (18) months since the complaint was filed and more than eleven (11) months since the answer was filed. Therefore, it is not timely. Even if it was, however, substantively, the motion wants for lack of justification and analysis. Rule 12(f) provides: “The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” The parties have not made a sufficient showing – or any showing at all – that Complaint and the Answer are “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, and/or scandalous.” Indeed, a Complaint and Answer are the very basis of a lawsuit, including this one. Therefore, the parties have failed to show they are entitled to the requested relief. Moreover, the requested relief — to strike from the record the Complaint and Answer — may not be relief available to the parties, even if the parties have so agreed in their settlement agreement. The Court is mindful that good cause is required to seal any part of the record in a case, and the parties’ requested relief, without more explanation or analysis, approaches running afoul of these concerns. See Citizens First Nat. Bank v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 948 (7th Cir. 1999). That is, even if the Court were to accept the parties’ proposed order granting their motion to strike, doing so would not automatically have the effect of removing “certain filings from the public record to remove certain information and allegations from the public docket,” which is the parties’ stated intent. (Dkt. 29 at 1). For all of these reasons, the parties’ motion is denied. To the extent parties wish to renew their motion, they may do so by submitting an amended motion and a brief summarizing relevant authorities in support of the requested relief by January 19, 2024. SO ORDERED.

Date: January 4, 2024 VAG Crystal S. Wildeman United States Magistrate Judge oo Southern District of Indiana Distribution: JOE L. BROWN, JR. 5410 E. 19th St. Indianapolis, IN 46218 (317) 993-6128 PRO SE

Mathew Rayman OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS 200 E. Washington Street

Suite 1601 Indianapolis, IN 46204

Michael Brian Coppinger , II 200 East Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46220

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

BROWN v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-city-of-indianapolis-department-of-public-works-insd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack