Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180423_0001148.MPA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 15:43:57+00:00

Document:
Plaintiff Graham Engineering Corporation (“Graham Engineering”) commenced this action against defendant Daniel Schilke (“Schilke”) as well as six related actions against defendants Eric Adair Doug Johnson William Kramer Jeff Lawton Michael Perri and Kevin Slusarz (collectively “defendants”) pursuant to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act 18 USC § 1030 and state law (Doc 46) Before the court is Graham Engineering's motion to strike portions of Schilke's answer (Doc 54) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) (Doc 56) The court will grant Graham Engineering's motion.
Graham Engineering is a Pennsylvania corporation that offers inter alia design and development expertise for plastic products (Doc 46 ¶¶ 2 14) On January 1 2016 Graham Engineering acquired American Kuhne Inc (“American Kuhne”) a Delaware corporation that employed defendants (Id. ¶¶ 15 17 22 24) As part of the acquisition Graham Engineering acquired ownership of defendants' employment and confidentiality agreements with American Kuhne (Id. ¶¶ 26-28). Graham Engineering contends that defendants violated these agreements by accessing and retaining Graham Engineering's confidential information without permission (See id ¶¶ 43 55 79 92 109 135 155-56) Graham Engineering further avers that defendants utilized this information to form U.S. Extruders a competitor incorporated in Rhode Island (See id ¶¶ 158 187 194).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) the court may strike from a pleading “an insufficient defense or any redundant immaterial impertinent or scandalous matter” Fed R Civ P 12(f) District courts have “considerable discretion” in resolving a Rule 12(f) motion Krisa v Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y, 109 F.Supp.2d 316, 319 (M.D. Pa. 2000) (quoting N. Penn. Transfer, Inc. v. Victaulic Co. of Am., 859 F.Supp. 154, 158 (E.D. Pa. 1994)). In general, such a motion will be denied unless the allegations are severely prejudicial to one of the parties and unrelated to the plaintiff's claims. Id.; see also 5C Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 1382 (3d ed. 2016). A party is prejudiced when the challenged pleading “confuses the issues” or places an undue burden on the responding party. Karpov v. Karpov, 307 F.R.D. 345, 348 (D. Del. 2015).
Graham Engineering contends that Schilke's fifteen responses to the second amended complaint, set forth supra, should be stricken for failure to conform to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 57 at 2, 9, 11). Specifically, Graham Engineering argues that the responses are “inappropriate” because they fail to apprise Graham Engineering as to whether Schilke admits or denies the allegations. (Id. at 11).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a party responding to a pleading to “admit or deny the allegations asserted against it.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(b). A party's denial must “fairly respond to the substance of the allegation.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(b)(2). If the party denies only part of an allegation, the denial must specifically designate what is denied and what is admitted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(b)(3)-(4).
A Rule 12(f) motion to strike may be used to address an improperly pleaded answer under Rule 8(b). See Sinclair Cattle Co., Inc. v. Ward, No. 1:14-CV-1144, 2015 WL 6125260 at *2 (MD Pa Oct 16 2015) (Conner C J) A motion to strike's purpose is to “clean up the pleadings streamline litigation and avoid unnecessary forays into immaterial matters” McInerney v. Moyer Lumber & Hardware Inc. 244 F.Supp.2d 393 402 (ED Pa 2002) (citing Garlanger v. Verbeke 223 F.Supp.2d 596 609 (DNJ 2002)) A defendant should respond to a complaint in such a way that a plaintiff will not be burdened with “ferret[ing] out a straightforward answer” See Sinclair Cattle Co. 2015 WL 6125260 at *3.

References: § 1030
 v. 
 § 1382
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.