David K. Ogden v. TI Automotive Group, Mark Decker, and Margaret Brumback

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied without prejudice David Ogden’s motion seeking to require defendants to reconsider or revise their answer and affirmative defenses. The court construed the motion as potentially arising under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(e) or 12(f), concluding that Rule 12(e) was unavailable because no responsive pleading was permitted and that any discovery-related concerns should be addressed under Rule 26.

Holdings

1. A party may not move for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) when no responsive pleading to the challenged pleading is allowed or ordered. A reply to an answer is permitted only with court authorization, and the court had not authorized one here.
2. Even if a responsive pleading were otherwise allowed, a party that has already filed that responsive pleading cannot seek a Rule 12(e) motion before filing it.
3. A party may not use Rule 12(f) to preemptively strike affirmative defenses merely because the defenses might broaden discovery; challenges to the scope of discovery must be brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Ogden could obtain a more definite statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) concerning Defendants' affirmative defenses when no responsive pleading to the answer was permitted or ordered.
2. Whether Defendants' affirmative defenses should be stricken under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) because of the potential breadth of discovery they might generate.

Disposition

other