Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02107/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02107-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

NICHOLAS D. FLORES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

G. HERRERA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-2107 DAD SCR P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with a civil rights action. On August 30, 2024, 

plaintiff filed a motion styled as “Motion to Vacate Stipulate or Compromise Settlement.” (ECF 

No. 33.) The court denied the requested relief on September 9, 2024. (ECF No. 34.) Defendants 

have moved to strike that motion on the asserted ground that it contains the improper disclosure 

of confidential settlement information. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff has not opposed the motion to 

strike. 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) allows the Court to strike from a pleading “any 

redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). However, Rule 

12(f) does not specifically apply here because defendants seek to strike a motion, rather than a 

pleading. Defendants also argue Federal Rule of Evidence 408 provides that statements made 

during settlement negotiations are inadmissible, see Fed. R. Evid. 408(a), and this court’s Local 

Rule 271 prohibits disclosure of communications made in connection with any Voluntary Dispute 

Resolution Program (“VDRP”) proceeding. (ECF No. 35 at 2.) 

Case 2:22-cv-02107-DAD-SCR Document 38 Filed 10/28/24 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 

A district court has the inherent power to strike an improperly filed confidential 

document. See Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 403 (9th Cir. 2010). The 

court will grant defendants’ unopposed motion to strike under the court’s exercise of inherent 

power to control its docket for the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. See id. 

Separately, defendants have filed an unopposed request for a settlement conference 

indicating the parties agreed to request a settlement conference. (ECF No. 36.) A settlement 

conference has been scheduled and the parties have been notified accordingly. 

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 

1. Defendants’ unopposed motion to strike (ECF No. 35) is granted.

2. Defendants’ unopposed request for a settlement conference (ECF No. 36) is granted.

Dated: October 25, 2024 

Case 2:22-cv-02107-DAD-SCR Document 38 Filed 10/28/24 Page 2 of 2