Brown v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 SHARNEE BROWN, 7 Case No. 2:25-cv-00918-NJK! Plaintiff(s), 8 NOTICE v. 9 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE 10] DEPARTMENT, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 The federal case reporters abound with pronouncements that motions to strike are highly 13} disfavored, e.g., Petrie v. Elec. Game Card, Inc., 761 F.3d 959, 965 (9th Cir. 2014), rarely granted, 14] e.g., Stanbury Law Firm vy. LR.S., 221 F.3d 1059, 1063 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam), and commonly viewed as “time-wasters,” e.g., Gaines v. AT&T Mobility Servs., LLC, 424 F. Supp. 3d 1004, 1014 16] (S.D. Cal. 2019).? The parties have filed four motions to strike in the short time this case has been 17] open. The parties are encouraged to focus their energy and resources on advancing discovery and 18] filing more impactful motion practice. The Court expects the parties moving forward to consider 19] carefully whether the filing of any future motion to strike is a worthwhile endeavor in light of its disfavored status. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: September 3, 2025 poe, 23 ZEN En Nancy J. Koppe\, _ 24 United StatesMagistrate Judge 25); ———_____»[{[__ ' This case is proceeding before the undersigned magistrate judge as part of the opt-out 26] consent program. See Docket Nos. 4-5; see also Gen. Order 2023-11. 27 ? Most of the case law addresses motions to strike under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Nonetheless, motions to strike invoking the Court’s inherent authority are 28] similarly disfavored, particularly when seeking to strike the filing of a pro se party.