Target Corporation v. Seaman Corporation

Background

Target sued Seaman over roofing membranes that Target alleged did not last as long as Seaman represented. Target asserted claims involving express warranties, fraudulent misrepresentations, Ohio and Minnesota deceptive-trade-practices laws, and Seaman’s alleged refusal to take back the roofing membranes.

The court had allowed Target to file a supplemental complaint adding two stores to the 16 stores already involved. Seaman then filed an answer asserting two defenses that had not appeared in its earlier answers: spoliation of evidence and Acts of God. Target moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike both defenses. That rule allows a court to remove an insufficient defense or other improper matter from a pleading.

Spoliation-of-Evidence Defense

The court held that spoliation of evidence is not an affirmative defense. An affirmative defense is a legal basis for avoiding liability even if the opposing party proves its claim. The court explained that spoliation is generally handled as an evidence or discovery matter, including through possible sanctions, rather than as an affirmative defense.

The court therefore granted Target’s motion to strike Seaman’s spoliation-of-evidence defense because it was legally insufficient as an affirmative defense.

Acts-of-God Defense

The court applied the moderate approach used by district courts in the circuit when deciding what a defendant may add in response to an amended pleading. Under that approach, when an amended pleading expands the case’s theory or scope, the opposing party may respond accordingly. If the amendment does not change the case’s theory or scope, the party generally must obtain permission to amend.

The court concluded that Target’s addition of two stores expanded the scope of the litigation and would require additional discovery concerning matters such as contract negotiations, weather conditions, and repair history at each location. The court determined that allowing Seaman to add an Acts-of-God defense was a less significant or proportionate response to that expansion. It therefore denied Target’s motion to strike that defense.

Disposition

The court ordered that Target’s motion to strike was granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the spoliation-of-evidence defense was stricken, while Seaman’s Acts-of-God defense was allowed to remain.