Rabang v. Kelly

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: April 7, 2020
• Docket: 2:17-cv-00088
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 MARGRETTY RABANG et al., CASE NO. C17-0088-JCC 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 ROBERT KELLY, JR., et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to strike (Dkt. No. 176). 16 Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral 17 argument unnecessary and hereby DENIES the motion for the reasons explained herein. 18 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), a district court “may strike from a pleading 19 an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” “[T]he 20 function of a 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise 21 from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial . . . .” Sidney– 22 Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983). 23 This case is currently on appeal before the Ninth Circuit, which stayed the appeal 24 pending the outcome of the appeal in Doucette v. Zinke, Case No. 2:18-cv-0859-TSZ (W.D. 25 Wash.). (See Dkt. No. 174.) On January 29, 2020, Plaintiffs provided notice that they had filed a 26 Rule 62.1 motion for indicative ruling on Plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b) and 15(a)(2) motions filed in 1 Doucette v. Bernhardt, Case No. 2:18-cv-0859-TSZ (W.D. Wash.). (Dkt. No. 175.) 2 Defendants now move to strike Plaintiffs’ notice. (Dkt. No. 176.) Plaintiff’s notice 3 informs this Court of activity in a related case and references previously undisclosed emails 4 between the Department of Interior’s new Nooksack special election point-person and the Tribal 5 Council’s lobbyist. (See Dkt. No. 175.) Defendants contend that the Court should strike the 6 notice because it excerpts the emails in a misleading way that casts an excessively adverse light 7 on the Kelly Defendants. (See Dkt. No. 176 at 3.) Based on the present briefing, the Court is not 8 persuaded that the material in the notice is so impertinent or scandalous that it should be stricken. 9 See Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 12(f). Nor is there any indication that Plaintiffs’ notice would give rise to 10 litigation of “spurious issues.” Sidney–Vinstein, 697 F.2d at 885. Therefore, Defendants’ motion 11 to strike (Dkt. No. 176) is DENIED. 12 DATED this 7th day of April 2020. A 13 14 15 John C. Coughenour 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26