Minnie Koran (MM

United States District Court, Northern District of THinois

Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Milton I. Shadur

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 02 C 9288 DATE 2/5/2003
CASE Traci Smith vs. Westfield Ford, lnc.
TITLE
Lin the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintifY, defendant, 3rd parly plaintilt, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented]

DOCKET ENTRY:

(1) Oo Filed motion of { use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due
(3) im} Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due.
(4) a Ruling/Hearing on _. Set for _at
(5) ia} Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) Qa Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for al
(7) a Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) o [Beneh/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to al
(9) qo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant Lo]
OOFRCP4(m) ClLocal Rule 41.) COFRCP41(a)(1) C1 FRCP4I(a)(2).
ao) 6h {Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Order. As stated at the outsct, the several items identified
here call for the entire Answer and Affirmative Defenses to be stricken so that, when Westfield corrects
the present deficiencies, any reader will be able to deal with a self-contained pleading rather that having
to move back and forth between two separate documents. Leave is ranted to file that new sel{-contained
responsive pleading in this Court’s chambers on or before l'ebruary 18, 2003.
dal) of [Por further detail see order attached to the original minute order.)
No notices required, advised in open court. Document
, . Number
No notices required, smb ol weiney |
WY | Notices muiled by judge's stuff. EB 0 6 7003

=r

Notified counsel by telephone. avy duckeled

Docketing to mail notices

Mail AO 450 form.

LyAgd Jay!

Cony to judge/magistrute judge.

eo ey is

2

courtroom
deputy’s
initials

SN

DalkAitne recoived int!
central Clerk's Olive



re

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

DOCKETED

FEB 0 6 2003

TRACI SMITH, }
Plaintiff,
ve No. 02 C 9288
WESTFIELD FORD, INC., }
Defendant. }
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Westfield Ford, Inc. (“Westfield”) has filed its Answer and
Affirmative Defense (“AD”) to the Title VII Complaint brought against
it by its ex-employee Traci Smith (“Smith”). Because that responsive
pleading exhibits some departures from fundamental principles of
federal pleading, this Court strikes it sua sponte--but with leave
granted to replead.
To begin with, several of Westfield's responses (Answer "43, 7
8 and 9) misstate the standards that are explicitly spelled out in
the second sentence of Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 8&{b) as the predicate
for getting the benefit of a deemed denial, sometimes coupling that

departure with a meaningless demand for “strict proof.” In both of

those respects, see App. 4/1 to State Farm Mut. Auto, Ins. Co. v.

Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 279 (N.D. Ill. 2001). Those paragraphs are
therefore stricken.

Answer §7 also declines to answer the allegations of Complaint
47 on the premise that a document “speaks for itself.” Even apart
from the obvious problem that, as Westfield's counsel states, the

document is not attached to the Complaint (thus rendering it

impossible for this Court to know whether Smith's allegations are or



are not accurate), that notion is unacceptable--see App. {3 to State
Farm. Answer 47 must therefore be recast.

Finally, some aspects of the AD (the concept of which is defined
by Rule 8(c) and by the caselaw applying that Rule) must be cleaned
up. AD 44 is at odds with the fundamental notion that an AD admits a
plaintiff's allegations but explains why defendant is nonetheless not
liable to plaintiff--that paragraph directly contradicts Complaint
fis, which Westfield has already put in issue by its denial.
Accordingly AD {4 is also stricken. And relatedly, the opening
clause of AD 45 is inconsistent with the fundamental nature of an AD,
and it too is stricken.

As stated at the outset, the several items identified here call
for the entire Angwer and AD to be stricken so that, when Westfield
corrects the present deficiencies, any reader will be able to deal
with a self-contained pleading rather than having to move back and
forth between two separate documents. Leave is granted to file that
new self-contained responsive pleading in this Court's chambers (with

a copy of course to be transmitted to Smith's counsel) on or before

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

February 18, 2003.?

Date: February 5, 2003

+ No charge is to be made to Westfield by its counsel for the

added work and expense incurred in correcting counsel's errors.
Westfield's counsel are ordered to apprise their client to that
effect by letter, with a copy to be transmitted to this Court's
chambers as an informational matter (not for filing) .

2