The defendants requested a case conference to address their motion to strike the plaintiff's factum, filed for an upcoming summary judgment motion, arguing it contained allegations previously precluded by a prior court order.
The court, acting as Case Management Judge, declined to strike the factum or adjourn the summary judgment motion for a preliminary motion to strike.
Citing jurisprudence, the court emphasized that preliminary motions to strike documents should be discouraged and reserved for the most egregious cases, as questions of relevance and admissibility are best left to the judge hearing the main motion.
The court ordered that the defendants' motion to strike would proceed at the outset of the summary judgment motion.
