(PC) Flores v. Herrera ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 NICHOLAS D. FLORES, No. 2:22-cv-2107 DAD SCR P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 G. HERRERA, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with a civil rights action. On August 30, 2024, 17 plaintiff filed a motion styled as “Motion to Vacate Stipulate or Compromise Settlement.” (ECF 18 No. 33.) The court denied the requested relief on September 9, 2024. (ECF No. 34.) Defendants 19 have moved to strike that motion on the asserted ground that it contains the improper disclosure 20 of confidential settlement information. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff has not opposed the motion to 21 strike. 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) allows the Court to strike from a pleading “any 23 redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). However, Rule 24 12(f) does not specifically apply here because defendants seek to strike a motion, rather than a 25 pleading. Defendants also argue Federal Rule of Evidence 408 provides that statements made 26 during settlement negotiations are inadmissible, see Fed. R. Evid. 408(a), and this court’s Local 27 Rule 271 prohibits disclosure of communications made in connection with any Voluntary Dispute 28 Resolution Program (“VDRP”) proceeding. (ECF No. 35 at 2.) ] A district court has the inherent power to strike an improperly filed confidential 2 || document. See Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 403 (9th Cir. 2010). The 3 || court will grant defendants’ unopposed motion to strike under the court’s exercise of inherent 4 || power to control its docket for the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. See id. 5 Separately, defendants have filed an unopposed request for a settlement conference 6 || indicating the parties agreed to request a settlement conference. (ECF No. 36.) A settlement 7 || conference has been scheduled and the parties have been notified accordingly. 8 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 9 1. Defendants’ unopposed motion to strike (ECF No. 35) is granted. 10 2. Defendants’ unopposed request for a settlement conference (ECF No. 36) is granted. 11 | Dated: October 25, 2024 12 13 / 14 SEAN C. RIORDAN 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28