Gilchrist v. Schlumberger Technology Corp.
321 F.R.D. 300
W.D. Tex.2017Background
- Plaintiffs Gilchrist and Brockman (former MWD operators) sued Schlumberger Technology Corp. (STC) under the FLSA alleging misclassification and unpaid overtime for work from ~Jan 2014–Jan 2016.
- Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (SAC) includes paragraphs (¶¶19–22) referencing over 35 other FLSA lawsuits brought against STC and several prior Department of Labor (DOL) investigations finding FLSA violations.
- STC moved to strike those paragraphs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) as immaterial, impertinent, scandalous, and highly prejudicial, arguing the other lawsuits/investigations are unrelated and would inflame the factfinder.
- Plaintiffs argued the references are probative of STC’s notice of FLSA requirements and therefore relevant to a willfulness finding (which affects the statute of limitations and potential treble damages).
- The Magistrate Judge considered Rule 12(f)’s high bar (only strike matter with “no possible relation to the controversy”) and declined to strike the allegations, finding them at least minimally relevant to willfulness and not legally scandalous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether allegations about other FLSA lawsuits and DOL investigations are immaterial or impertinent under Rule 12(f) | References show STC was on notice of FLSA requirements and bear on willfulness | Other lawsuits/investigations are unrelated, pending, and thus irrelevant; inclusion is prejudicial | Denied — allegations are relevant to willfulness and not devoid of relation to the controversy |
| Whether allegations are "scandalous" under Rule 12(f) | Describing STC as a repeat violator is supported by DOL findings and relevant to willfulness | Such language offends STC and prejudices its character | Denied — language not repulsive or name-calling and supported by record; not legally scandalous |
| Whether the court should disregard Plaintiffs’ late response and treat the motion as unopposed | Response should be considered on merits despite being six days late | Motion should be granted as unopposed under local rules | Denied — court exercised discretion to consider the late response |
| Whether striking is necessary to avoid prejudice at trial | Allegations can be limited at trial or addressed by motions in limine or limiting instructions | Striking is necessary because allegations are highly prejudicial and may improperly influence a jury | Denied — striking is a drastic remedy; evidentiary limits, instructions, or motions in limine are appropriate if needed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Coney, 689 F.3d 365 (5th Cir.) (Rule 12(f) should be used only when matter has no possible relation to the controversy)
- In re Gitto Global Corp., 422 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.) (court should not strike pleadings merely because they offend sensibilities)
- Augustus v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Escambia Cty., Fla., 306 F.2d 862 (5th Cir.) (standard that material should be stricken only if it has no possible relation to controversy)
- In re Beef Indus. Antitrust Litig., 600 F.2d 1148 (5th Cir.) (district court has broad discretion under Rule 12(f))
- Chao v. A-One Med. Servs., 346 F.3d 908 (9th Cir.) (prior FLSA violations or DOL interactions can be probative of willfulness)
- Florance v. Buchmeyer, 500 F. Supp. 2d 618 (N.D. Tex.) (striking portions of a pleading is a drastic remedy; standards for scandalous material)