UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

DAVID A. SCOTT, JR., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Cause No. 2:14-cv-106 

 ) 

UAW SOLIDARITY HOUSE, b/k/a ) 

INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED ) 

AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE and ) 

AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT ) 

WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 This matter is before the court on the Motion for Hearing [DE 79] filed by the plaintiff, 

David A. Scott Jr., on November 10, 2016, the Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s “Duty to Disclose, 

General Provision Governing Discovery and the Right to Evidence Discloser” [DE 81] filed by 

the defendant, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement 

Workers of America, UAW on November 21, 2016, and the Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Hearing [DE 83] filed by International Union on November 22, 2016. For the following 

reasons, the Motion for Hearing [DE 79] is DENIED, the Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s “Duty to 

Disclose, General Provision Governing Discovery and the Right to Evidence Discloser” [DE 81] 

is GRANTED, and the Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Hearing [DE 83] is DENIED as 

MOOT.

Background 

 David A. Scott Jr. filed an employment discrimination Complaint against International 

Union on April 4, 2014, alleging wrongful termination, sex and disability discrimination, 
2 

retaliation, and harassment. Scott also has filed an employment discrimination Complaint 

against his former employer Lear Corporation. The two cases are combined for discovery 

purposes only. 

 Heather Falks, of the firm Stewart & Stewart, entered her appearance on behalf of Scott 

on March 25, 2015. Falks filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, and a hearing was held before 

Judge Jon DeGuilio to address Falks’ motion. The motion was granted. Scott was unable to 

obtain new counsel and is currently proceeding pro se, therefore, under N.D. Ind. L.R. 26-

2(a)(2)(A) all discovery in cases involving a pro se party must be filed with the court. 

 International Union indicated at the status conference held on September 27, 2016, that it 

provided Scott with all the discovery that previously was given to attorney Falks. A discovery 

deadline of December 30, 2016 was set along with a briefing schedule. On November 3, 2016, 

Scott filed Duty to Disclose, General Provisions Governing Discovery and the Right to Evidence 

Discloser [DE 77]. Scott has represented that he wanted to make the court aware that his rights 

continue to be violated with equal and fair representation and with the defendants’ discovery. It 

details meetings with former attorney Falks and argues that the defendants, Lear and 

International Union, have provided insufficient discovery. He contends that International Union 

and Lear have failed to provide the same discovery that was provided to Falks. 

Discussion 

 International Union has requested that the court strike Scott’s Duty to Disclose, General 

Provision Governing Discovery and the Right to Evidence Discloser. It is important to note 

Scott’s filing is not styled as a motion. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) states that “the 

court may strike from a pleading any ... redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous 

matter.” Motions to strike are generally disfavored, although they may be granted if they remove 
3 

unnecessary clutter from a case and expedite matters, rather than delay them. Heller Financial, 

Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., Inc., 883 F.2d 1286, 1294 (7th Cir. 1989); Shirley v. Jed Capital, 

LLC., 2010 WL 2721855, *5 (N.D. Ill. 2010); Doe v. Brimfield Grade School, 552 F.Supp.2d 

816, 825 (C.D. Ill. 2008). The decision whether to strike material is within the discretion of the 

court. Talbot v. Robert Matthews Distrib. Co., 961 F.2d 654, 665 (7th Cir. 1992). “Motions to 

strike under Federal Rule 12(f) are not favored and are usually denied unless the language in the 

pleading has no possible relation to the controversy and is clearly prejudicial.” Tektel, Inc. v. 

Maier, 813 F.Supp. 1331, 1334 (N.D. Ill. 1992). 

 International Union has argued that Scott’s Duty to Disclose, General Provision 

Governing Discovery and the Right to Evidence Discloser is primarily concerned with Scott’s 

issues with former attorney Falks. Therefore, the allegations made against Falks are not properly 

before the court and are redundant, immaterial, and impertinent. International Union contends 

that Scott was given an opportunity to address these issues at the June 29, 2016 hearing before 

Judge Jon DeGuilio. An employment discrimination complaint is before the court, so this is not 

the proper forum to raise allegations against Falks. 

 Also, International Union contends that Scott addresses his issues with Lear, which have 

no bearing on the Complaint against International Union. Scott contends that International 

Union has failed to provide truthful discovery. However, International Union argues that when 

Scott filed his Duty to Disclose, General Provision Governing Discovery and the Right to 

Evidence Discloser there were no pending discovery request. Therefore, the pleading contains 

immaterial and impertinent information regarding discovery materials Scott believes he is 

entitled to receive. 
4 

 International Union has indicated that the pleading contains scandalous information, 

including Scott’s allegation that Falks, International Union, Lear, and their counsels have 

improperly colluded to violate Scott’s rights. International Union represents that these 

allegations are baseless and not pertinent to the complaint and reflect cruelly on it and counsel. 

Finally, the allegations made by Scott are not proximately related or relevant to the Complaint 

against International Union. 

 In light of these observations, the court finds that the allegations are immaterial and 

impertinent to the matter. Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 26-2 states that discovery 

shall not be filed except under certain circumstances, including when one of the parties is a pro 

se litigant. Under this circumstance, all discovery involving the pro se party must be filed. The 

only documents that should be filed are discovery requests as laid out in the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, including interrogatories, requests for admissions, requests for production, and 

the like, and the responses thereto. Therefore, the court STRIKES Scott’s Duty to Disclose, 

General Provision Governing Discovery and the Right to Evidence Discloser [DE 77]. 

 Based on the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS the Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s 

“Duty to Disclose, General Provision Governing Discovery and the Right to Evidence Discloser” 

[DE 81]. Scott has not requested relief from the court, therefore, the court sees no reason to hold 

a hearing in this matter. The Motion for Hearing [DE 79] is DENIED. Because the court has 

denied the plaintiff’s Motion for a Hearing, the defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Hearing [DE 83] is DENIED as MOOT. 

 ENTERED this 19th day of December, 2016. 

 /s/ Andrew P. Rodovich 

 United States Magistrate Judge