Opinion
11581-20
08-03-2023
STEVEN FELLER & LOUISE FELLER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Christian N. Weiler, Judge
On November 15, 2022, petitioners filed their First Supplement to Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. On November 18, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to Strike from petitioners' supplement all statements made by respondent's counsel during compromise negotiations and any allusions to said statements. Respondent identifies Exhibit B and specific sentences in the supplement as the subject of the Motion to Strike.
On November 18, 2022, petitioners filed their Reply to Motion to Strike. Petitioners assert that their purpose for including references to the compromise negotiations was related to their Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The inclusion was to support their argument that respondent's counsel improperly asserted penalties in the amended answer to use as a "bargaining chip" in settlement negotiations. On August 2, 2023, this Court denied petitioners' Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as related to this issue.
Under Rule 52, the Court may order stricken any "redundant, immaterial, impertinent, frivolous, or scandalous matter." Motions to strike are generally not favored by federal courts and should be granted only in limited circumstances. Estate of Jephson v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 999, 999-10001 (1983). This Court requires the moving party to show prejudice in support of the motion. Id. at 1001. Additionally, the moving party must show that the material to be stricken bears no possible relation to the controversy. Id.
The material respondent seeks to strike does not meet the standard to be stricken. Respondent has not sufficiently demonstrated what prejudice, if any, would be suffered if this material was not stricken nor has respondent shown that the material has no possible relation to the present controversy.
Upon due consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that respondent's Motion to Strike, filed November 18, 2022, is denied.