United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge United States District Court.
This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs Shane Harrington and Kali Records, LLC’s, (hereinafter “plaintiff” singular) motion to strike (Filing No. 91). The matter has been fully briefed by the parties. See Filing Nos. 92, 95, and 98. After review of the motion, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, the Court finds as follows.
Plaintiff filed suit on August 20, 2014 (Filing No. 1). On August 21, 2014, plaintiff filed an amended complaint (Filing No. 4). On February 6, 2015, after the dismissal of two parties, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion to amend. See Filing No. 24. After the dismissal of additional parties and claims, plaintiff again sought to amend (Filing No. 34). The Court granted plaintiff’s motion (Filing No. 36). In response to defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiff filed an opposition and a cross motion to file a “Third Amended Complaint.” (Filing No. 44). On June 30, 2015, the Court granted plaintiff leave to file his Third Amended Complaint (Filing No. 54). The Court’s order stated “[o]n plaintiff’s stipulation that no further amendments will be made the Court will allow the plaintiff to file his Third Amended Complaint.” (Id. at 1) (internal citations omitted).
Following the filing of his Third Amended Complaint and another motion to dismiss by defendants, plaintiff filed a motion to “Disqualify Counsel and Declare Lincoln Municipal Ordinance 17757 Unconstitutional.” (Filing No. 63). The Court “construed [plaintiff’s motion] as an improper attempt to amend the complaint” and denied the motion (Filing No. 81).
On November 13, 2015, the Court held a planning conference. The plaintiff indicated to the Court that no additional amendments to the pleadings were needed. The Court thereafter issued an “Amended Final Progression Order” on November 16, 2015 (Filing No. 83).
Plaintiff now asks the Court to strike “portions of . . . [the] Third Amended Complaint . . . pertaining to physical and emotional distress, as they were inadvertently and unintentionally left in the [Third Amended Complaint] . . . .” (Filing No. 92 at 1). Plaintiff’s motion also requests “that the Interrogatories and Rule 34 discovery requests pertaining to [p]laintiff’s medical history ‘since birth’ be stricken . . . .” (Id. at 3-4).
A. Motions to Strike Under Federal Rule 12(f)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), a “court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). A court “may act on its own; or on motion made by a party either before responding to the pleading, or, if a response is not allowed, within 21 days after being served with the pleading.” Id. A district court “enjoys ‘liberal discretion’” in the determination of a motion to strike. Stanbury Law Firm v. I.R.S., 221 F.3d 1059, 1063 (8th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation omitted). “Motions to strike under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f) are viewed with disfavor and are infrequently granted.” Lunsford v. United States, 570 F.2d 221, 229 (8th Cir. 1977) (internal citations omitted).
B. Motions for Protective Orders Under Federal Rule 26(c)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) allows:
[a] party or any person from whom discovery is sought . . . [to] move for a protective order . . . . The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a ...