Fernandez v. Duarte

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANK J. FERNANDEZ, Case No.: 3:22-cv-00446-BAS-VET

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 14 E. DUARTE,

15 Defendant. [Doc. No. 110] 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Notice of Lodging of 18 Discovery Documents Subject to Information Privilege and Motion for Sanctions 19 (“Motion”). For the reasons detailed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on a First 22 Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Duarte. Doc. Nos. 8. at 7; 9 at 24. On 23 October 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery, requesting that 24 Defendant produce certain discovery documents. Doc. No. 81. On October 22, 2024, 25 Defendant filed a timely Opposition, asserting the official information privilege in 26 response to Plaintiff’s requests for production. Doc. No. 83 at 10. Subsequently, this 27 Court ordered that Defendant lodge all unredacted and redacted versions of the 28 documents withheld pursuant to the official information privilege (“Documents”) for in 1 camera review according to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii). Doc. No. 95 at 2. On 2 February 7, 2025, Defendant lodged the Documents with the Court and filed a Notice of 3 Lodging of Documents Subject to Official Information Privilege. See Doc. No. 103. 4 Plaintiff now requests that the Court strike the lodged Documents and sanction 5 Defendant. Doc. No. 110 at 1-2. 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 A. Motion to Strike 8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that a “court may strike from a 9 pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or 10 scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(f); Gaines v. AT&T Mobility Servs., LLC, 424 11 F. Supp 3d 1004, 1014 (S.D. Cal. 2019). Motions to strike are regarded with disfavor, in 12 part, “because they are often used as a delaying tactic.” Neilson v. Union Bank of Cal., 13 N.A., 290 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1152 (C.D. Cal. 2003). “Given their disfavored status, courts 14 often require a showing of prejudice by the moving party before granting the requested 15 relief.” Id. “Ultimately, whether to grant a motion to strike lies within the sound 16 discretion of the district court.” Serafin v. Realmark Holdings, LLC, No. 23-cv-03275- 17 PCP, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6972, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2024) 18 As an initial matter, the Court notes that the Documents are not part of any 19 pleading in the record. Nor were the Documents filed on the public docket as the 20 Documents were lodged with the undersigned’s chambers. Doc. No. 103. As such, there 21 is technically nothing for the Court to strike from the record. See Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. 22 Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that “only pleadings are subject to 23 motions to strike” and noting the absence of any cases construing Rule 12(f) “as allowing 24 a district court to strike material not contained in the pleadings of the case”). Still, even if 25 part of the record, there is no basis to strike the Documents. Defendant lodged the 26 Documents to comply with a Court order. See Doc. No. 95 at 2. Specifically, the Court 27 requested the Documents for the purpose of conducting an in-camera review to decide 28 Defendant’s official information privilege claims. Id. By lodging the Documents, 1 || Defendant was responding to the Court’s order. Accordingly, the Court declines to strike 2 ||documents that it ordered Defendant to provide for purposes of evaluating his privilege 3 ||claims. Gaines, 424 F. Supp. 3d at 1014 (“motions to strike are generally not granted 4 |/unless it is clear that the matter sought to be stricken could have no possible bearing on 5 || the subject matter of the litigation”). 6 B. Motion for Sanctions 7 Plaintiff requests that “sanctions be put on defendant for filing [the Documents] in 8 faith.” Doc. No. 110 at 2. As already explained, Defendant filed the Documents in 9 || response to this Court’s order. In doing so, Defendant did not engage in any sanctionable 10 || conduct. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff's request for sanctions. 11 || UL CONCLUSION 12 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion in its entirety. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED.

15 Dated: Mareh 24, 2029 Honorable Valerie E. Torres 16 United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28