Spiehs v. Topeka & Shawnee County Public Library et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JUSTIN SPIEHS,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOPEKA & SHAWNEE COUNTY PUBLIC
LIBRARY, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 24-4117-TC-BGS
MEMORANDUM & ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE
Defendant Topeka & Shawnee County Public Library (hereinafter “Defendant”) brings the
present motion asking for a portion of Plaintiff’s Complaint to be stricken. (Doc. 6.) For the
reasons set forth herein, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.
In its succinct motion, Defendant indicates that ¶ 7 of Plaintiff’s Complaint references a
video recording of events that is incorporated by reference; also attached to the Complaint is a
sworn statement from Plaintiff. (Doc. 6, at 1, referencing Doc. 1.) Defendant complains that “[n]o
video recording is attached to the Complaint, therefore denying [Defendant] the opportunity to
answer the allegations in the Complaint that rely on the video.” (Doc. 6, at 1.)
Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s attached sworn statement
is not verified, not sworn, contains over 33 single-spaced pages relating
to events totally not related to the events of August 30, 2025, nor the
Counts spread in the Complaint. Instead, the statement relates to the
Plaintiff’s behavior and experiences at the Topeka Police Department
and/or Shawnee County Department of Corrections beginning June
14, 2025, and after September 5, 2025.
Case 5:25-cv-04117-TC-BGS Document 9 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 4

2
(Id., at 2.) Defendant is, however, at least partially incorrect as the first paragraph of Plaintiff’s
sworn statement specifically says: “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.” (Doc. 1, at 14.)
Defendant continues that “[p]ursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(f)[,] the statement from the Plaintiff
must be stricken as immaterial and an impertinent matter to the facts and issues of the Complaint.”
(Doc. 6, at 2.) Defendant’s statement is entirely conclusory as its motion does not discuss or analyze
how the matter at issue is immaterial or impertinent.
Plaintiff, on the other hand, responds that his sworn “statement describes the events
depicted on the video and provides a first person evidentiary account of the August 30, 2025
incident, as well as related facts relevant to motive, pattern, and municipal custom. The sworn
statement supplies precisely the factual detail Rule 8 contemplates, even though the video itself
cannot yet be conventionally filed.” (Doc. 8, at 2.)
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), a court may “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or
any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” The purpose of a Rule 12(f) motion
to strike “is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious
issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial.” Rajala v. McGuire Woods, LLP, No. 08-02638-
CM-DJW, 2011 WL 91948, at *2 (D. Kan. Jan. 11, 2011) (citing Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co.,
697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983)).
That stated, the striking of allegations is a “drastic remedy.” Nwakpuda v. Falley’s, Inc., 14
F.Supp.2d 1213, 1215 (D.Kan.1998) (citations omitted). Thus, motions to strike are “generally
disfavored … .” Rajala, 2011 WL 91948, at *2 (citations omitted). The Court has discretion to
decide whether to strike a matter under Rule 12(f). Sawo v. Drury Hotels Co., LLC, No. 11-2232-JTM-
GLR, 2011 WL 3611400, at *2 (D. Kan. Aug. 15, 2011). Further, “any doubt concerning the import
Case 5:25-cv-04117-TC-BGS Document 9 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 4

3
of the allegations to be stricken weighs in favor of denying the motion to strike.’ ” Rajala, 2011 WL
91948, at *2 (citation omitted).
The party moving to strike material from a pleading “has a ‘demanding burden’ to show
adequate grounds under Rule 12(f).” Sawo, 2011 WL 3611400, at *2. Rule 12(f) presents two
premises for striking an allegation from a pleading. First, and inapplicable here, a defense may be
stricken as insufficient “if it cannot succeed, as a matter of law, under any circumstances.” Rajala v.
McGuire Woods, LLP, No. 08-02638-CM-DJW, 2011 WL 91948, at *2 (D. Kan. Jan. 11, 2011) (citing
Hayne v. Green Ford Sales, Inc., 263 F.R.D. 647, 648–49 (D. Kan. 2009)) (other internal citations
omitted). Second, an allegation may be stricken if it “is considered redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous if it is ‘so unrelated to plaintiff’s claims as to be unworthy of any
consideration as a defense and ... [its] presence in the pleading throughout the proceeding will be
prejudicial to the moving party.’ ” Id. (citing Youell v. Grimes, No. 00–2207–JWL, 2001 WL 121955,
at *2 (D. Kan. Feb. 8, 2001)) (quoting 5A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice
and Procedure § 1380 at 650 (2d ed.1990)).
To be considered “immaterial,” matter in a pleading must be “that which has no essential or
important relationship to the claim for relief, or a statement of unnecessary particulars in connection
with that which is material.” Dean v. Gillette, No. 04-2100-JWL-DJW, 2004 WL 3202867, at *1 (D.
Kan. June 8, 2004). There are instances in this District in which a court has stricken something as
immaterial when the court considers that it may also be prejudicial. Northern Natural Gas Co. v. L.D.
Drilling Co., Inc., No. 08-1405-JTM, 2017 WL 1048365, at *2 (D. Kan. Mar. 20, 2017) (finding that
striking material per Rule 12(f) should occur “only when the material may be prejudicial to a party
and lacks any possible relation to the controversy”) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
“Prejudice occurs when the challenged pleading or allegation confuses the issues or is so lengthy and
complex that it places an undue burden on the responding party.” Foster v. Pfizer Inc., No. 00–1287–
Case 5:25-cv-04117-TC-BGS Document 9 Filed 01/29/26 Page 3 of 4

4
JTM, 2000 WL 33170897, at *2 (D. Kan. Dec. 12, 2000). “Allegations should be stricken as
scandalous only if they are irrelevant and ‘degrade defendants’ moral character, contain repulsive
language, or detract from the dignity of the court.’ ” Dean, 2004 WL 3202867, at *1.
Given that courts generally disfavor the drastic remedy of striking material from a pleading,
discussed supra, the Court finds that Defendant has not met the requisite high burden imposed on
the party moving to strike. As previously stated, Defendant’s motion relies on conclusory
statements rather than including a substantive discussion as to how the information is immaterial or
impertinent.
Further, Plaintiff correctly asserts that he was unable to “attach” a video file in the Court’s
CMECF docketing system. Instead, he indicates he would seek leave to subsequently file the video
conventionally, if necessary. (Doc. 8, at 1.) As Plaintiff correctly argues, “[l]itigants routinely plead
the existence of recordings, photographs, and documents without attaching them, and the proper
mechanism for obtaining such evidence is discovery, not a Rule 12(f) motion. The Complaint
identifies the video and incorporates it by reference, which is all that is required at the pleading
stage.” (Id., at 1-2.) Defendant’s motion (Doc. 6) is, therefore, DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 29th day of January, 2026.
/S / BROOKS G. S EVERSON
BROOKS G. SEVERSON
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Case 5:25-cv-04117-TC-BGS Document 9 Filed 01/29/26 Page 4 of 4