DiChiara v. Salem, NH, Town of et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Stephen DiChiara,
Plaintiff
v. Case No. 22-cv-131-SM
Opinion No. 2022 DNH 069
The Town of Salem and
The New Hampshire Attorney General,
Defendants
O R D E R
Invoking the provisions of Federal Rule 12(e), the Town of
Salem moves the court to order plaintiff to file a more definite
statement. According to the Town, plaintiff’s complaint is “so
vague and ambiguous that Salem cannot reasonably respond to the
allegations.” Motion for More Definite Statement (document no.
4) at 1.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “A party may
move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a
responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or
ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). As this court has previously noted,
[A defendant’s] entitlement to a more definite
statement is governed by principles described in Lewis
Case 1:22-cv-00131-SM Document 12 Filed 05/31/22 Page 1 of 5

2
v. Textron Auto. Co., 935 F. Supp. 68 (D.N.H. 1996).
In that case, the court explained that since Rule
12(e) motions are designed to strike at
unintelligibility, rather than at lack of detail in
the complaint, a Rule 12(e) motion properly is granted
only when a party is unable to determine the issues he
must meet. The motion for a more definite statement
is not favored, and courts frown on a litigant’s use
of the motion as a “shotgun tactic” to substitute for
discovery.
S.E.C. v. Patel, No. CIV. 07-CV-39-SM, 2008 WL 474352, at *2
(D.N.H. Feb. 19, 2008) (citations and internal punctuation
omitted).
According to the complaint, Stephen DiChiara was a patrol
officer with the Salem, New Hampshire, police department. In
2019, he claimed to have sustained a work-related injury that
disabled him from performing the regular duties of his job –
that is, post-traumatic stress disorder arising out of a traffic
stop involving a felon in possession of a firearm. In
connection with DiChiara’s application for Worker’s Compensation
Benefits, the Town of Salem came into possession of his medical
and mental health records. Apparently sensing that DiChiara was
exaggerating the severity of his injury and its symptoms,
employees of the Town referred the matter to the New Hampshire
Attorney General’s Office for investigation. As part of that
referral, one or more of those Town employees allegedly shared
Case 1:22-cv-00131-SM Document 12 Filed 05/31/22 Page 2 of 5

3
DiChiara’s confidential medical records with agents of the
Attorney General.
In his complaint, DiChiara alleges that the Town of Salem
and the Attorney General each maintained a custom, policy,
and/or practice that encouraged or condoned the alleged
misconduct of their employees and agents. The complaint
identifies the conduct DiChiara alleges was unlawful and then
summarizes his claims – all of which are against both defendants
- as follows:
The conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, was
in violation of, and deprived Plaintiff of his Civil
Rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and his rights
and privileges secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution, Part I,
Articles 2-b and 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution,
New Hampshire RSA 281-A:21-b, New Hampshire RSA
329:26.
The conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, was
in violation of their duties to the Plaintiff under
the Common Law of the State of New Hampshire including
Common Law invasion of privacy, intentional and
negligent infliction of emotional distress, and
defamation/false light.
Complaint (document no. 1) at paras. 51-52. Parenthetically,
the court notes that DiChiara’s complaint was originally filed
in state court, where the rules and customs for pleading are
Case 1:22-cv-00131-SM Document 12 Filed 05/31/22 Page 3 of 5

4
different from those in federal court. Defendants then removed
the proceeding to this court.
DiChiara’s complaint is not the model of detail. And, as
the Town notes, it does not separate plaintiff’s several claims
into individual “counts,” as is typically done in federal court.
See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Nevertheless, the
complaint is not so vague or ambiguous that the defendants
cannot readily discern the nature of the claims against them or
the factual allegations supporting those claims. Rather, the
complaint states with reasonable clarity each of the specific
statutory, constitutional, and common law causes of action that
DiChiara is advancing, as well as the factual allegations he
says support those causes of action. At this juncture, no more
is required.
While some of plaintiff’s claims may not survive a motion
to dismiss, that is not the issue before the court. The
question presented is whether the complaint is so vague, so
ambiguous, or so unintelligible that the Town cannot reasonably
be expected to understand the nature of the claims against it.
The Town has not shown that to be the case.
Case 1:22-cv-00131-SM Document 12 Filed 05/31/22 Page 4 of 5

5
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, as well as those set forth in
Plaintiff’s Objection (document no. 6), The Town of Salem’s
Motion for a More Definite Statement (document no. 4) is denied.
SO ORDERED.
____________________________
Steven J. McAuliffe
United States District Judge
May 31, 2022
cc: Counsel of Record
Case 1:22-cv-00131-SM Document 12 Filed 05/31/22 Page 5 of 5