Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04667/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04667-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Defendant
Susan Mae Polk
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUSAN MAE POLK,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-4667-PJH 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

STRIKE

Plaintiff Susan Mae Polk seeks an order striking Exhibit D to the Declaration of 

David M. Hardy in support of defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation’s motion for 

summary judgment. Plaintiff previously also moved for an order sealing Exhibit D, which 

motion was granted in an order issued June 12, 2015.

The motion to strike is DENIED. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), 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). Rule 12(f) is limited 

to striking only pleadings and permits the striking of only those specific matters which are 

provided for in the rule. Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973-74 (9th 

Cir. 2010).

There is no provision in the Federal Rules for motions to strike documents or 

portions of documents other than pleadings. However, federal courts are permitted to 

strike documents as part of their inherent power to control their dockets, in particular, to 

control abusive litigation practices. See Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 

402, 404-05 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing court’s inherent power to strike items from the 

docket as a sanction for abusive litigation conduct). 

Case 4:14-cv-04667-PJH Document 36 Filed 07/02/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Here, two considerations militate against granting plaintiff’s request. First, Exhibit 

D to the Hardy Declaration has been filed under seal, and is thus no longer available on 

the public docket. Regardless of whether any of this material has or has not previously

been released as part of a public record or proceeding, it is now no longer publicly 

available, in this case at least.

Second, plaintiff has identified no abusive litigation conduct on the part of the FBI 

that warrants any type of sanction. Plaintiff claims that at the time she provided the FBI 

with the information in Exhibit D in 1985, the FBI “promised” her that the material in the 

case file would not be accessible to the public, and that in including the information as 

part of Exhibit D, the FBI reneged on that “promise.” However, that cannot be considered 

abusive litigation conduct, as the FBI had no reasonable means to know that an agent 

made such a “promise” thirty years ago. While the FBI did initially oppose plaintiffs’

motion to seal Exhibit D, on the basis that she had not clearly identified the information 

she wanted sealed and had not shown any compelling reason to seal Exhibit D as 

required by Civil Local Rule 79-5 and Ninth Circuit authority, the FBI subsequently filed a 

statement of non-opposition to the request. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 2, 2015

__________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-04667-PJH Document 36 Filed 07/02/15 Page 2 of 2