• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • 1
    CommentGo Back
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDAPENSACOLA DIVISIONCase No. 3:08-cv-361-MCR-EMT
 MINOR I. DOE, through parentPARENT I. DOE; MINOR II. DOE, throughPARENT II. DOE,Plaintiffs,v.SCHOOL BOARD FOR SANTA ROSACOUNTY, FLORIDA; JOHN ROGERS, inHis official capacity as Superintendent of theSchool District of Santa Rosa County, Florida;H. FRANK LAY, in his official capacity asPrincipal of Pace High School,Defendants._______________________________________/ 
 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE [Doc. 24]
Plaintiffs oppose Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Doc.24. The motion suffers from two fatal flaws, each of which is sufficient tocompel denial of the motion; it is part and parcel of a two-pronged attempt
1
by
1
 
See
Doc. 19, Doc. 20: the School Board’s and Principal Lay’s Motions toDismiss, alleging lack of standing to assert District-wide constitutionalviolations. Defendants also complained about Plaintiffs’ discovery that seeks touncover additional examples of these District-wide constitutional violations;this Court afforded Defendants additional time to respond.
 
 
2the School Board for Santa Rose County (“the School Board”) to prevent thisCourt from considering any references to the School Board’s District-wideunconstitutional custom of promoting school officials’ religious beliefs andproselytizing students in class and at school events.First, Defendants confuse Rule 12(f), a rule of pleading, with Rule 408, arule of evidence. Rule 12(f) establishes standards for pleading and authorizesdistrict courts to “order stricken from any pleading ... any redundant,immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Rule 408 is an evidentiary rulethat governs the admissibility of evidence of settlement or compromise.Evidentiary matters are not ripe for this Court’s adjudication.Second, even if a Rule 408 Motion in Limine by Defendants
were
ripe foradjudication, the motion would be without merit. The matters referred to inParagraphs 64 and 65 of the Complaint fall outside the ambit of Rule 408(a):Meetings with the School Board’s counsel nearly one year ago, and theresulting documents, would be admissible under Rule 408(b) to establish thatthe Defendants had notice of their unconstitutional acts before this suit wasfiled.Moreover, Defendants rely on cases from within the Eleventh Circuit only toestablish the Rule 12(f) standard for striking pleadings or allegations; they cite
 
 
3no cases from within the Eleventh Circuit as support for the extraordinary relief they seek. Defendants ignore a plethora of cases from this District as well asthe Southern and Middle Districts of Florida; not even the cases Defendants citeactually support their motion; and two cases they rely upon support
denial
of their motion. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court denyDefendants’ Motion to Strike.
I.
 
Rule 12(f) Standards Compel Denial of Defendants’ Motion to Strike.
Defendants ask this Court to strike paragraphs 64 and 65 of Plaintiffs’complaint as “impertinent and immaterial” references to settlementnegotiations. Doc. 24 at 3-4. Paragraphs 64 and 65 of Plaintiffs’ Complaintallege:
 
64. During a meeting with ACLU staff on November 14, 2007,the School Board’s attorney reviewed a number of instances inwhich school officials promoted their religious beliefs andproselytized students in class and at school events.65. Several weeks later, the School Board’s attorney,recognizing that school officials were in violation of theEstablishment Clause, drafted a memorandum to advise whichschool officials’ practices violated the Establishment Clause.However, the School Board failed to end the unconstitutional,policies, practices, and customs.Doc. 1 at 24.Rule 12(f) authorizes district courts to order that “any redundant, immaterial,
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...