Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00280/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00280-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 07cv00280

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VAXIION THERAPEUTICS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07cv00280-IEG (RBB)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO STRIKE

SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORTS

OF LOUIS S. BERNEMAN AND

MICHAEL J. LASINSKI AND

REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS [Doc. No.

164]

vs.

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP and DOES 1

through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

Defendant Foley and Lardner (“Foley”) moves the Court to strike the supplemental reports of

plaintiff Vaxiion Therapeutics’ (“Vaxiion”) experts Louis S. Berneman and Michael J. Lasinski.

Defendant additionally requests the Court impose sanctions upon plaintiff sufficient to pay Foley’s

costs in bringing the instant motion. 

Defendant’s motion does not indicate the part of the record from which it desires the Court to

strike the expert reports; instead it appears defendant is using the motion to strike as a vehicle to

generally preclude plaintiff from using the reports. Defendant’s motion is based on grounds that the

contested expert reports rely on a term sheet that arose from confidential settlement discussions and

whose use was prohibited by protective order. Foley additionally argues the reports are untimely

under the established case management schedule, and the experts’ use of the term sheet is precluded

by Fed. R. Evid. 408. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) (2008) sets out the requirements for disclosure of expert testimony during

the discovery process, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (2008) sets out the consequences for failure to provide

Case 3:07-cv-00280-IEG-RBB Document 172 Filed 12/11/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 07cv00280

proper and timely disclosures. Nothwithstanding these provisions, a generalized motion to strike is

not appropriate here. Although Foley cites no procedural authority for its motion, Foley presumably

brings the motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Rule 12(f) provides that “[t]he court may strike from

a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.”

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) (2008). Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) enumerates what is considered a “pleading” in a

lawsuit: “(1) a complaint; (2) an answer to a complaint; (3) an answer to a counterclaim designated

as a counterclaim; (4) an answer to a crossclaim; (5) a third-party complaint; (6) an answer to a

third-party complaint; and (7) if the court orders one, a reply to an answer.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)

(2008). Thus, by the plain text of the federal rules, defendant may not bring a motion under Rule 12(f)

because the instant motion is not related to a pleading. 

Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has adopted a strict reading of the applicability of a Rule 12(f)

motion. In Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880 (9th Cir. 1983), the appellant

challenged a trial court's striking of its motion to reconsider the Court's order granting summary

judgment. The court held striking the motion was improper, in part because “only pleadings are

subject to motions to strike.” Sidney-Vinstein, 697 F.2d at 885. Despite Rule 12(f)’s limited

applicability, courts do have discretion to strike inadmissible evidence filed in support of a summary

judgment motion. Bliesner v. Commun. Workers of Am., 464 F.3d 910, 915 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding

a district court did not abuse its discretion when it struck part of an affidavit supporting a motion for

summary judgment). Foley does not indicate in its motion that either report is related to any pleading

or motion presently pending before the Court. Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendant’s motion

to strike and request for sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 11, 2008

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:07-cv-00280-IEG-RBB Document 172 Filed 12/11/08 Page 2 of 2