CHAPPUIS v. ORTHO SPORT & SPINE PHYSICIANS SAVANNAH, LLC
305 Ga. 401
Ga.2019Background
- Ortho Sport sued former partner Dr. Chappuis and related entities alleging threats, harassment, racist conduct, stalking, and business interference after a deteriorated partnership and a prior settlement; claims included conspiracy, tortious interference, trespass, invasion of privacy, IIED, defamation, and punitive damages.
- Defendants moved under OCGA § 9-11-12(f) to strike 15 paragraphs of the verified complaint as redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous, targeting allegations about drug/alcohol use, violence, racist messages, hired stalkers/impersonators, prostitution, and inflammatory quotations.
- The trial court granted the motion in a one‑sentence order (no hearing or analysis) and struck all 15 paragraphs; Ortho Sport obtained interlocutory review and the Court of Appeals reversed as to most strikes, affirming only deletion of specific substance‑use and prostitution references.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide the proper standard for striking "scandalous" matter under OCGA § 9‑11‑12(f) and whether the trial court applied the correct analysis.
- The Supreme Court held that when a motion targets scandalous matter, the trial court must assess both potential relevance (the usual "no possible bearing"/liberal relevance test) and the prejudice the allegation would cause, and must exercise discretion with appropriate reasoning; because the trial court lacked such analysis, the matter was remanded for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard for OCGA § 9‑11‑12(f) strikes | Ortho Sport: apply the liberal "no possible bearing" relevance test and deny strikes unless matter can have no possible bearing. | Defendants: court may strike prejudicial matter even where materiality is unlikely; urged stricter exclusion. | Court: Start with relevance (liberal "no possible bearing" test). For allegations labeled "scandalous," also require explicit consideration of prejudice; balance relevance and prejudice. |
| Role of prejudice in striking "scandalous" matter | Ortho Sport: prejudice insufficient to overcome relevance; relevant allegations should remain. | Defendants: prejudice can justify striking scandalous allegations even if marginally relevant. | Court: Prejudice is a required consideration for scandalous matter; highly prejudicial but remote allegations may be struck. |
| How trial courts should proceed procedurally | Ortho Sport: deny strikes at pleading stage absent clear irrelevance. | Defendants: permit strikes without hearing if pleadings warrant. | Court: Trial courts should evaluate each challenged allegation, may request clarification, prune offensive language surgically, and explain reasoning; hearings useful but not mandated. |
| Appellate review standard | Ortho Sport: Court of Appeals applied correct "no possible bearing" test and reversed. | Defendants: trial court’s striking was permissible. | Court: Appellate courts should defer to trial court’s informed discretion; here trial court failed to apply correct standards, so vacatur and remand required. |
Key Cases Cited
- McGivern v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 132 Ga. App. 297 (Ga. Ct. App.) (articulates the "no possible bearing" test under § 9‑11‑12(f))
- Taunton v. Dept. of Transp., 217 Ga. App. 232 (Ga. Ct. App.) (reiterates that motions to strike are disfavored and uses the "no possible bearing" standard)
- Lipsky v. Commonwealth United Corp., 551 F.2d 887 (2d Cir. 1976) (pleading‑stage relevance is hard to determine; courts should be cautious about striking on sterile pleadings)
- Stanbury Law Firm v. Internal Revenue Serv., 221 F.3d 1059 (8th Cir. 2000) (motions to strike are drastic and viewed with disfavor)
- Ancient Coin Collectors Guild v. United States, 899 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2018) (appellate deference to trial court’s reasonable exercise of discretion on Rule 12(f) matters)