In a case decided last week, McKenzie v. Hall, the Fourth Circuit sent a clear message that it does not tolerate Motions to Strike. The Appellants had filed such a Motion to strike portions of an adversary's brief which they said were objectionable.
The Court struck back, quoting a Seventh Circuit decision, Redwood v. Dobson, 476 F.3d 462, 471 (7th Cir. 2007), and holding that:
- "Motions to strike sentences or sections out of briefs waste everyone’s time. . . ."
- "Motions to strike words, sentences, or sections out of briefs serve no purpose except to aggravate the opponent. . . . -- and . . . this goal is not one the judicial system will help any litigant achieve."
- "Motions to strike disserve the interest of judicial economy. The aggravation comes at an unacceptable cost in judicial time."
Op. 9 & n.3.
The proper way to deal with an objectionable brief is not a Motion to Strike. The Court said that:
The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provide a means to contest the accuracy of the other side’s statement of facts: that means is a brief (or reply brief, if the contested statement appears in the appellee’s brief), not a motion to strike.
Id. (emphasis added).
In case you were wondering, there's no provision for a Motion to Strike in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.