Plaintiffs,
Case No.: 3:08-cv-361-MCR-EMT
v.
Defendants.
/
JOHN ROGERS, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the School District of Santa
Rosa County, Florida, (“Defendants”), by and through the undersigned counsel, and pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) and N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1, move to strike Paragraphs 64 and 65 of the
regarding conversations that took place between counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union
(“ACLU”) and counsel for the Defendant School Board, Paul Green, prior to the date on which
3. A true and exact copy of correspondence between Mr. Green and Benjamin
Stevenson, ACLU counsel and counsel for the Plaintiffs in this case, dated December 4, 2007,
and January 4, 2008, along with the affidavit of Paul Green, is attached as Composite Exhibit A.
4. The meetings held and the correspondence exchanged between the ACLU and
counsel for the School Board, and the fact that the memorandum was prepared by Mr. Green,
64 and 65 of the Complaint, along with such other and further relief as this Court may deem
appropriate.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
The purpose of a Rule 12(f) motion to strike is to, inter alia, provide a means to remove
materials in the pleadings that are redundant, immaterial, impertinent and scandalous.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). “In evaluating a Motion to Strike, the court must treat all well-pleaded facts
as admitted and cannot consider matters beyond the pleadings.” Cherry v. Crow, 845 F.Supp.
1520, 1523 (M.D.Fla. 1994) (citing U.S. Oil Co., Inc. v. Koch Refining Co., 518 F.Supp. 957,
959 (E.D.Wis. 1981)). The court is vested with broad discretion in considering a motion to strike
under Rule 12(f). Williams v. Eckerd Family Youth Alternative, 903 F. Supp. 1515, 1517 (M.D.
Fla. 1995).
2
II. Argument and Authority - Bases for Striking the Complaint
the ACLU and Paul Green, counsel for the Santa Rosa County School Board, occurring on or
about November 14, 2007. (Doc. 1, Complaint, pg. 24, ¶64). As indicated in Mr. Green’s
affidavit, the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the possibility of resolving the issues that are
In Paragraph 65, Plaintiffs reference a draft memorandum that was sent by Mr. Green to
ACLU in furtherance of settlement discussions. (Doc. 1, Complaint, pg. 24, ¶65). The
memorandum and accompanying letter were sent for the purpose of attempting to resolve the
dispute that is now at issue in this case. Citing the fact that the memorandum was sent, Plaintiffs
attempt to whipsaw the Defendants by alleging that “the School Board’s attorney, recognizing
that school officials were in violation of the Establishment Clause, drafted a memorandum to
advise which school officials’ practices violated the Establishment Clause. However, the School
Board failed to end the unconstitutional, [sic] policies, practices and customs.” (Doc. 1,
memorandum by the School Board’s lawyer in order to establish liability in this case. More
specifically, Plaintiffs have included these allegations to establish that the Defendants failed to
remedy alleged violations of the Establishment Clause. To the extent Plaintiffs have not included
references to privileged conversations and documents to establish liability, these allegations are
3
settlement of a dispute is inadmissible to prove liability. Fed. R. Evid. 408(a). 1 Accordingly, all
references to this privileged meeting during which possible resolution of this dispute was
discussed, and references to all documents relating to such discussions, should be stricken from
the Complaint. See, Berry v. Lee, 428 F. Supp. 2d 546, 563 (N.D. Tex. 2006) (“Courts have,
however, used Rule 12(f) to strike allegations from complaints that detail settlement negotiations
within the ambit of Rule 408.”) (citing Phila.’s Church of Our Savior v. Concord Twp., 2004
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15400 at *8, 2004 WL 1824356, at *2 (E.D. Pa. July 27, 2004) ("While Rule
408 does not apply to pleadings directly, . . . allegations in a complaint may be stricken, under
Rule 12(f), as violative of these policies."); United States ex rel.Alsaker v. CentraCare Health
Sys., Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10180 at *7, 2002 WL 1285089, at *2 (D. Minn. June 5, 2002)
inadmissible to prove liability. Although this is a rule of evidence, courts have routinely granted
motions to strike allegations in pleadings that fall within the scope of Rule 408." (citation
omitted)); Kelly v. L.L. Cool J., 145 F.R.D. 32, 40 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (granting defendant's motion
1
The Rule states:
(a) Prohibited uses.—Evidence of the following is not admissible on behalf of any party,
when offered to prove liability for, invalidity of, or amount of a claim that was disputed
as to validity or amount, or to impeach through a prior inconsistent statement or
contradiction:
4
to strike portions of complaint that referenced settlement discussions under Rule 408 as
immaterial and potentially prejudicial); Agnew v. Aydin Corp., 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9911 at
**8-12, 1988 WL 92872, *4 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 6, 1988) (striking parts of complaint pursuant to
Rule 408 because they referenced settlement negotiations for the purpose of showing liability)).2
The communications at issue here strike at the heart of Rule 408. If parties were free to
Moreover, where, as here, the settlement communications are used as a sword – to establish the
failure to remedy alleged constitutional violations – the chilling effect is event more palpable,
and provides an even greater impetus to strike any reference to such communications from a
complaint.
Pursuant to N. D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1(B), the undersigned certifies that he has contacted
counsel for the Plaintiffs in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised herein. Plaintiffs’
counsel has indicated that Plaintiffs oppose the motion. Counsel for Defendant, Frank Lay, in his
official capacity as Principal of Pace High School has consented to, and joins in, the filing of this
Motion.
2For ease of the Court’s reference, copies of all cases using a LEXIS citation are attached as
Composite Exhibit B.
5
Respectfully submitted,
6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 22d day of October, 2008, I electronically filed
Defendants’ Motion to Strike Complaint and Supporting Memorandum of Law, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division, by using the
CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following counsel of record:
Randall C. Marshall
Maria Kayanan
American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation of Florida
4500 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 340
Miami, Florida 33137
Daniel Mach
Heather L. Weaver
ACLU Program on Freedom of
Religion and Belief
915 15th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005