A recent Delaware Chancery decision is notable for its pithy resolution regarding a rarely used but important procedural rule that, in theory, has wide application. In ZAGG v. Keogh, C.A. No. 2023-1275-KSJM (Del. Ch. May 8, 2025), the court denied a motion to strike portions of a pleading based on Rule 12(f) which provides for striking from a pleading any material that is “redundant, scandalous, immaterial, or not pertinent”.

But the standard is much more stringent than appears on the face of the rule. That is, the court must determine: “(1) whether the challenged averments are relevant to an issue in the case and (2) whether they are unduly prejudicial”. Letter op. at 3.

Moreover, the court observed that such motions are “not favored” and “granted sparingly only when clearly warranted with all doubt being resolved in the nonmoving party’s favor”. Id.

Though relevant, the court explained why there was no prejudice based on the facts of the case. Letter op. at 4. The court instructed that such motions focus on the form of the pleading and not its substance.

The court reasoned, in support of its denial, that the court does not evaluate the merits of claims on a motion to strike.

Procedurally, the motion was decided after trial and after a post-trial opinion was rendered on the key issues presented at trial.