Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04301/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04301-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Negotiable Instrument

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES M. BROWN,

Plaintiff, No. C 07-4301 EDL

v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE 

COUNTER-CLAIMANT’S MOTION TO

STRIKE CERTAIN PHRASES FROM

COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND

DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

WIRELESS NETWORKS, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

Now before the court is the motion of Counter-Claimant Wireless Networks, Inc. (“Wireless”

or “Defendant”) to Strike Certain Phrases in Plaintiff’s Answer, and Motion for Sanctions. For the

reasons stated at the hearing, the Court hereby grants Wireless’ motion to strike and denies its

motion for sanctions. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that “the court may order stricken from any

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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). The function of a Rule 12(f) motion is to avoid the expenditure of time and

money that arises from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues before trial. See

Fantasy Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Wireless is correct that certain phrases in Brown’s answer are immaterial. See, e.g., Answer

¶ 15 (“acting upon advice of acting counsel for the Company, Mr. Frank Sudia, an NDA was sent to

a single employee of WNI for the purpose of general discussion of technology unrelated to the

Case 3:07-cv-04301-EDL Document 88 Filed 02/19/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

business of WNI, and for other unrelated persons. Brown denies that Cedric Berger, [etc.] were

employees of WNI, but alleges they were unrelated parties desirous of participating in

discussions.”); ¶ 27 (“admits and alleges that he appeared at a Deposition under threat of a Subpoena

being issued to him by Mr. Hagan,” despite unequivocal testimony at the deposition that Plaintiff

appeared voluntarily). These extraneous allegations shall be stricken from the answer. As stated at

the hearing, however, carefully crafted requests for admissions, rather than a motion to strike the

answer, are a more appropriate vehicle to narrow factual issues and avoid the unnecessary

expenditure of time and money. Accordingly, Wireless’ motion for sanctions is denied. 

As stated at the hearing, Wireless shall provide to Plaintiff a copy of the transcript of

Brown’s deposition that was taken in the Hagan litigation no later than February 26, 2008. Brown’s

amended answer shall be filed no later than February 26, 2008. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2008 ______________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04301-EDL Document 88 Filed 02/19/08 Page 2 of 2