GYETVAY
v.
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant's supplemental filing.
Plaintiff sued the Department of Justice to compel disclosure of records under FOIA. Defendant moved for summary judgment, later supplementing its mot…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Vaughn Index cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff Mark A. Gyetvay sues the United States Department of Justice ("Defendant") to compel the disclosure of certain records under the Freedom of Information Act. Defendant moved for summary judgment. (Doc. 39.) [fn 1] Then, after learning that a database had not been searched, Defendant supplemented the motion with a declaration from Carmen M. Banerjee (Doc. 44) and an updated Vaughn index (Doc. 44-1). Gyetvay now moves to strike this filing because it is untimely, materially alters the summary judgment motion, and is prejudicial. (Doc. 45 at 5.) For the reasons below, the motion is denied.
Motions to strike “are generally disfavored ... [and] often considered time wasters.” Arthurs v. Glob. TPA LLC, No. 6:14-CV-1209-ORL-40-TBS, 2015 WL
13652716, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2015). That is because a motion to strike is a drastic remedy reserved for circumstances where the material sought to be excluded is insufficient as a matter of law. Guarantee Ins. Co., v. Brand Mgmt. Serv., Inc., No. 12-61670-CIV, 2013 WL 4496510, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2013).
While the Court can certainly understand the frustration created by Defendant's untimely supplement, striking these materials is not the answer. Gyetvay's gripe is that Defendant substantially altered its motion for summary judgment past the deadline, resulting in prejudice. But any prejudice can be alleviated by further briefing. And striking the exhibits will only inhibit addressing the merits. See Owens v. Benton, 190 F. App'x 762, 763 (11th Cir. 2006) ("There is a strong preference that cases be heard on the merits[.]").
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff Mark Gyetvay's Motion to Strike (Doc. 45) is DENIED.
2. To account for Defendant's supplemental declaration (Doc. 44), Gyetvay may file a supplemental response to Defendant's motion for summary judgment. The supplemental response must be filed by December 20, 2024, and not exceed 10 pages.
ENTERED in Fort Myers, Florida on December 6, 2024.
2
Copies: All Parties of Record
3
Kyle C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge
[fn 1]: Unless otherwise indicated, all internal quotation marks, citations, case history, and alterations have been omitted in this and later citations.