Opinion ID: 874016
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the District Court Err in Denying James's Motion To Strike Portions of the Merceas' Answer?

Text: On May 5, 2010, the Merceas filed an answer to James's amended complaint. They attached to their answer various photographs of the property and included their assertions of what those photographs showed. The Merceas' motion for reconsideration was heard on May 25, 2010, as was a motion by James to strike portions of the Merceas' answer. The motion to strike is not in the record, although in denying the motion the district court stated that it had been made pursuant to Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). The record does not reflect what the motion asked to be stricken. However, during argument on the motion James's counsel stated, I'm asking the Court to strike the reference to the photographs and counsel's commentary as to what the facts are in this matter. The reasons given were that the photographs and the commentary about the photographs in the answer made the Merceas' counsel a material witness and that an answer is not supposed to argue facts. Rule 12(f) provides that the court may strike from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. [1] James has not pointed to any matter in the answer that was redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous, and therefore the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.