“Kitchen Sink” Approach to Answers/Affirmative Defenses Does Not Warrant Striking Under Rule 12(f)

The court denied plaintiffs’ motion to strike portions of defendants’ answer because the answer was not impermissibly vague and overinclusive. “Plaintiffs’ arguments blow the deficiencies in Defendants’ Amended Answer out of proportion. Although Defendants’ affirmative defenses may be overbroad, this is a common feature of answering pleadings, which often adopt a ‘kitchen sink’ approach to affirmative defenses. Further, while Defendants may be gratuitously adding information to provide more context to their admissions or denials, such information is not redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. . . . Plaintiffs indicate that some of Defendants’ denials will lead them to expend additional efforts in discovery, but those efforts will be minimal at best. For example, it will not require significant discovery efforts to get Defendants to authenticate a printout of their website. Simply put, going through the answering pleadings line-by-line to excise the imperfect portions would be a pointless exercise. The Court therefore finds itself in accord with other district courts that have questioned the utility of motions like these . . . .”

Harbor Breeze Corporation et al v. Newport Landing Sportfishing, Inc. et al, 8-17-cv-01613 (CACD 2018-03-09, Order) (Cormac J. Carney)

2018-03-13T11:37:04+00:00 March 13th, 2018|Docket Report, Trademark|