CR_Opposition to Bausch and Lomb_Motion2STRIKE_1stBrief_Filled9_2015
Carlos Ramirez Pro Se Opposition to crocked BauschandLomb VRX Motion to Strike the 'Truth'. Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal with the 11th Cir. Carlos Ramirez Pro Se Opposition to crocked BauschandLomb VRX Motion to Strike the 'Truth'. Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal with the 11th Cir.
Case: 15-11914 Page: 6 Appellee claims at its motion the following: “Appellant failed to request leave of this Court or appended material to his brief without first filing a motion to supplement.” However, “A Pro Se complaint is held “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” Whether to exclude relevant witnesses depositions and documented evidence; not listed, considered or previously presented to the lower Court even though they are mentioned at the Docket, is discretionary to the court. Appellee, Bausch & Lomb inc., should not be granted its request to strike any portion of Appellant’s brief and appendix because none of the materials in question are redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous rather, are parts of the record to which Appellant wishes to direct the court’s attention. By the contrary, the presented materials are relevant to the decision at stake. Moreover, the dispute portions of Appellant’s brief and the appendix have proper relationship to the controversy and it will clarify the issues. This Pro Se - In Forma Pauperis, Appellant will be otherwise prejudice. This honorable court should conclude that the best course of action is to allow the case to be decided on: the merits of and guided by the principle of, validly gathered/interchanged between the parties at discovery and/or to answers given to requests for production, pre trial list of exhibits. This case has had enough
Case: 15-11914 Page: 7 unnecessary secrecy through; seal of documents, sign of confidentiality agreements which have always benefited Appellee’s quest to, demeanor the allegations and walk out without a scratch. The Appellees’s assertions and innuendo’s that it is prejudiced by surprise or nondisclosure is meritless and it only seeks to obstruct justice. It is nonsensical for Appellee to now argue that it did not have notice of these portion records that they want this Court to strike. Further, given the clear notice of years in this litigation and for Appellee to put in doubt the identity and existence of; witnesses’ testimonies and evidence is just wrong. The evidence meets three criteria: It is compelled, testimonial, and incriminating. Retaliatory animus was the only cause of the challenged adverse employment action In considering Appellee Motion to Strike, this Court should be guided by the well settled principle that Motions to Strike are generally disfavored. For example, the district court noted: Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the Court to strike any “insufficient defense;” however it is well settled among courts in this circuit that motions to strike are generally disfavored and will usually be denied unless it is clear the pleading sought to be stricken is insufficient as a matter of law. Fabrica Italiana Lavorazione Materie Organiche S.A.S. v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 684 F.2d 776 (11thCir. 1982); Thompson v. Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC, 211 F.Supp.2d 1345 (M.D. Fla. 2002); In re Sunbeam Securities Litigation, 89 F.Supp.2d 1326 (S.D. Fla. 1999)). A “court will not exercise its discretion under the rule to strike a pleading unless the matter sought to be omitted has no possible relationship to the controversy, may confuse the issues, or otherwise prejudice a party.” Reyher v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. , 881 F.Supp. 574 (M.D. Fla. 1995). 3 Blanc v. Safetouch, Inc., 2008 WL 4059786 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2008). “Smith has not pointed to record evidence that any materially adverse employment action was a matter of retaliation for her whistle-blowing”
- Page 1 and 2: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
- Page 3 and 4: Case: 15-11914 Page: 3 T.M. Guyer a
- Page 5: Case: 15-11914 Page: 5 during appea
- Page 9 and 10: Case: 15-11914 Page: 9 reason for t
- Page 11 and 12: Case: 15-11914 Page: 11 “…. the
- Page 13 and 14: Case: 15-11914 Page: 13 65, P. 209
- Page 15 and 16: Case: 15-11914 Page: 15 Same entry,
Case: 15-11914 Page: 6<br />
Appellee claims at its motion the following: “Appellant failed <strong>to</strong> request leave of<br />
this Court or appended material <strong>to</strong> his brief without first filing a motion <strong>to</strong><br />
supplement.”<br />
However, “A Pro Se complaint is held “<strong>to</strong> less stringent st<strong>and</strong>ards than formal<br />
pleadings drafted by lawyers”<br />
Whether <strong>to</strong> exclude relevant witnesses depositions <strong>and</strong> documented evidence; not<br />
listed, considered or previously presented <strong>to</strong> the lower Court even though they are<br />
mentioned at the Docket, is discretionary <strong>to</strong> the court.<br />
Appellee, <strong>Bausch</strong> & <strong>Lomb</strong> inc., should not be granted its request <strong>to</strong> strike any<br />
portion of Appellant’s brief <strong>and</strong> appendix because none of the materials in question<br />
are redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or sc<strong>and</strong>alous rather, are parts of the record<br />
<strong>to</strong> which Appellant wishes <strong>to</strong> direct the court’s attention. By the contrary, the<br />
presented materials are relevant <strong>to</strong> the decision at stake.<br />
Moreover, the dispute portions of Appellant’s brief <strong>and</strong> the appendix have proper<br />
relationship <strong>to</strong> the controversy <strong>and</strong> it will clarify the issues. This Pro Se - In Forma<br />
Pauperis, Appellant will be otherwise prejudice.<br />
This honorable court should conclude that the best course of action is <strong>to</strong> allow the<br />
case <strong>to</strong> be decided on: the merits of <strong>and</strong> guided by the principle of, validly<br />
gathered/interchanged between the parties at discovery <strong>and</strong>/or <strong>to</strong> answers given <strong>to</strong><br />
requests for production, pre trial list of exhibits. This case has had enough
Change language