Plaintiff moves, pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C. A., “to strike as much of the answers of the defendants herein, as the same are insufficient, redundant, immaterial, impertinent and scandalous.”
The complaint аlleges that certain acts of the defendants constitute a conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. Plaintiff seeks an injunction and a money judgment for treble damages in thе sum of $1,050,000.
The essential facts in this controversy are set forth in our earlier opinion denying plaintiff’s motion fоr an injunction pendente lite in the companion action Budget Dress Corp. v. Joint Board, etc., D. C.,
Counsel for defendants contend that plaintiff’s motion is a broadside attack on all the allegations in the answers of all the defendants and does not comply with the requirement of particularity set forth in Rule 7(b) (1).
We agree. Howevеr, as we have earlier indicated (Cf. our memorandum concerning an identical motion in the companion suit), the history of this suit is such as to persuade us to dispose of the plaintiff’s motion on its merits. In the instant cаse the ends of justice will best be served by not following the otherwise applicable holdings of Sachs еt al. v. Ohio National Life Insurance Co., D.C.,
Motions to strike are not looked upon with favor and should not be granted, even though the averments complained of are literally within the provisions of Rule 12(f), in the absence of a showing that they have no relation to the controversy or are clearly prejudiсial to the movant (De Belaieff v. Moulton, D.C.,
A motion to strike for insufficiency was never intended to furnish an opportunity for the determination of disputed and substantial questions of law (O’Reilly v. Curtis Publishing Co., D.C.,
Joint Board’s thirteenth defense and International’s twelfth defense arе essentially identical and must be stricken on the grounds that they are scandalous and legally insufficient.
They are scandalous in that they allege, with gruesome and evidentiary detail, various conspiracies between plaintiff and several elements of the underworld, characterized in these defenses as “strong arm men” and “racketeers”.
Rule 8(e) demands conciseness in pleading. Courts will not permit a party to use his pleadings as a dumping ground for that evidence which he may not otherwise be able to present to the trier of the facts.
These allegations, viewed in the most favorable light, attempt to interpоse the equitable defense of unclean hands. However, as we have earlier said:
“[I]f plaintiff had been a victim of defendant’s unlawful practices the fact that it had also been guilty of illegal conduct would not immunize defendant against liability. The antitrust laws are more concerned with the injury- to the public than*509 they are with the morals of the private litigants.” (Affiliated Music Enterprises v. Sesac, Inc., D.C.,160 F.Supp. 865 , at page 876, citing Kiefеr-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons,340 U.S. 211 ,71 S.Ct. 259 ,95 L.Ed. 219 ; Trebuhs Realty Co. v. News Syndicate Co., D.C.,107 F.Supp. 595 ).
Accordingly, these defenses are stricken.
In its memoranda, plaintiff does direct some of its attack against paragraphs 18 to 36 of Joint Board’s answer. These paragraphs present the Court with historical data concerning the nature and operation of the dress industry in the New York area. Joint Board submits this material in explanation of the motive for the activities of which plaintiff complains.
Courts have continuously removed such matter from pleadings as fruitless archeology. However, such material has becоme customary in antitrust actions (Cf. Garbose v. George A. Giles Co. [no opinion for publication], Civ. No. 7838, D.C.Mass., 1949, Wyzаnski, J.). Such allegations have been found to be of great value in the handling of antitrust cases (Cf. Hon. Charles E. Clark, Special Pleading in the “Big Case”,
Examples of this type of pleading have been criticized or stricken where their breadth would have resulted in a correspondingly broad discovery (Cf. Hon. Archie O. Dawson, The Place of the Pleading in a Propеr Definition of the “Big Case”,
The paragraphs which plaintiff seeks to have stricken from Joint Board’s аnswer contain no characterizations which may be deemed prejudical to the plaintiff. The histоrical material contained therein is limited to the dress industry in the New York area, thereby conforming to рlaintiff’s choice of geography. Apart from depriving Joint Board of the opportunity of submitting any evidеnce on the question of its motive, nothing would be accomplished by striking these paragraphs.
Accordingly, except as to Joint Board’s thirteenth defense and International’s twelfth defense, plaintiff’s motion is denied.
So ordered.