Evans et al v. Robertson et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Sybrena Evans,
Plaintiff,
v.
Danielle Robertson, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
Case No. 24-13435
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge
Mag. Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AN EXHIBIT UNDER SEAL [88] AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE [97]
Before the Court is Plaintiff Sybrena Evans’ motion for leave to file
an exhibit under seal and Plaintiff’s motion to strike two filings by
Defendant “Danielle Robertson.”1 (ECF Nos. 88, 97.)
I. 	Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an exhibit under seal
(ECF No. 88)
Plaintiff moves for leave to file her Exhibit G under seal. (ECF No.
88.) She explains that this exhibit relates to her objections (ECF No. 79)
1 “Danielle Robertson” is Defendant’s alias and not her true name.
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 113, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 1 of 6

2
to Magistrate Judge Stafford’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 75)
and Order. (ECF No. 74.)
Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 79) were stricken and are not part of
the record for the reasons set forth in the Court’s November 7, 2025 order.
(ECF No. 106, PageID.2257 (striking ECF No. 79).) Because Plaintiff’s
objections are stricken and are not part of the record, Plaintiff’s motion
to file an exhibit in support of her objections is denied as moot.
II. Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s filings (ECF No.
97)
Plaintiff also moves to strike Defendant’s filings (ECF Nos. 93, 94)
as “untimely, duplicative, and in violation of prior court orders.” (ECF
No. 97, PageID.1931.) Plaintiff argues that the “governing standard” of
motions to strike is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) and “the Court’s
inherent authority to control its docket.” (ECF No. 97, PageID.1932.)
Plaintiff believes that Defendant’s filings are late, duplicative, and
contain a “pattern of procedural evasion and docket manipulation.” (Id.
at PageID.1933–1934.)
First, Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s objections to the
Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 93) is denied as moot. That
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 113, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 6

3
document already stricken for the reasons set forth in the Court’s
November 7, 2025 order. (See ECF No. 106, PageID.2260.)
Next, Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s “motion for leave to
reinstate Exhibit 83 and to submit video evidence” (ECF No. 94) is not
well taken. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) states that “the court
may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous material.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)
(emphasis added). Motions and objections are not pleadings. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 7(a) (defining pleadings as complaints, answers to complaints,
etc.); see also Deltro Elec. Ltd. v. Elec. Power Sys. Int’l, Inc., No. 1:21-CV-
303, 2022 WL 4449002, at *12 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 23, 2022) (“As a general
matter, motions to strike apply only to pleadings, not motions or
responses to motions.”).
It is true that the Court has the inherent authority to strike filings.
See Am. C.L. Union of Kentucky v. McCreary Cnty., 607 F.3d 439, 451
(6th Cir. 2010) (describing the district court’s discretion to strike motions
as its power to manage its own docket). However, the Court’s inherent
authority to strike filings does not mean that litigants may file
unnecessary motions to strike that needlessly complicate litigation and
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 113, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 3 of 6

4
hinder the Court’s ability to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
The Court notes that the litigants—and Plaintiff especially—have
filed numerous motions to strike. Between May 9, 2025 and November 3,
2025, a period of less than 6 months, the parties filed six motions to
strike. (ECF Nos. 31, 36, 41, 56, 97, 103.) Plaintiff alone has filed five of
these motions to strike. (ECF Nos. 31, 36, 41, 56, 97.) Four of these
motions to strike have been denied (see ECF No. 74), and one was stricken
because it included factitious citations. (See ECF No. 106, PageID.2261
(striking Defendant’s motion to strike (ECF No. 103)).) The parties—and
non-party John Doe—have also filed responses to these motions to strike,
further increasing the number of unnecessary filings on the docket. (ECF
Nos. 34, 49, 99.)
Filing excessive motions overwhelms the docket and is disrespectful
of the Court’s time. Issues like overlength, duplicative filings, and
timeliness do not require a motion to strike. If the parties disagree with
a motion, they may file a response in opposition to that motion. If the
parties disagree with a response, they may file a reply explaining their
disagreement. The Court is especially concerned that motions to strike
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 113, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 4 of 6

5
may be used as an attempt to file unauthorized sur-replies. (See, e.g.,
ECF No. 103 (Defendant’s stricken motion to strike Plaintiff’s reply
(titled “limited rebuttal”) to Plaintiff’s stricken objection (ECF No. 79)).)
In short, Plaintiff’s motion to strike is denied. The parties are
warned that their excessive filings have hindered the Court’s ability to
speedily adjudicate this case and are unnecessary. The parties are
cautioned against further motions to strike in this case.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file
an exhibit under seal (ECF No. 88) is denied as moot, and Plaintiff’s
motion to strike two filings by Defendant is denied in part as moot and
denied in part. (ECF No. 97.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 20, 2025 	s/Judith E. Levy
Ann Arbor, Michigan 	JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 113, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 5 of 6

6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s
ECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on November 20, 2025.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager
Case 5:24-cv-13435-JEL-EAS ECF No. 113, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/20/25 Page 6 of 6