Kulke v. Sopheon Corporation et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------- x
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
x
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
No. 25-CV-1218-RER-JRC
DEANNE KULKE,
Plaintiff,
-against-
SOPHEON CORPORATION and
GREG COTICCHIA,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES R. CHO, United States Magistrate Judge:
On March 4, 2025, plaintiff Deanne Kulke (“plaintiff”) commenced this action against
defendants Sopheon Corporation (“Sopheon”) and Greg Coticchia (“Coticchia” and collectively,
“defendants”), alleging employment discrimination and retaliation on the basis of gender, sex
and sexual orientation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000-e, et seq., the New York State Human Rights Law § 290, et seq., and the New York City
Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101, et seq.
Currently pending before this Court, on referral from the Honorable Ramon E. Reyes, Jr.,
is defendant Sopheon’s motion to strike certain paragraphs in plaintiff’s Complaint, pursuant to
Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Mot. to Strike (Dkt. 16). For the reasons
set forth below, this Court respectfully recommends denying Sopheon’s motion.
Factual and Procedural Background
The following facts are drawn from the Complaint, which are accepted as true for
purposes of this motion.
In January 2022, plaintiff was hired by Sopheon after being recruited by Sopheon’s Sales
Case 1:25-cv-01218-RER-JRC Document 34 Filed 12/23/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Vice President of Americas, John Beischer, and interviewing with defendant Coticchia and
Sopheon’s Executive Chairman, Andrew Michuda. Compl. ¶¶ 12-13 (Dkt. 1). Plaintiff, who is a
gay woman, alleges that she experienced a “toxic, chaotic,” work environment at Sopheon,
characterized by an “old boy’s club” culture that marginalized women and gay employees. Id.
¶¶ 7, 11, 77. Coticchia preferred to hire “dudes” and “bros” who fit this “boy’s club” culture.
Id. ¶ 26.
Plaintiff further alleges that defendant Coticchia fostered a “boy’s club” atmosphere at
Sopheon, where perceived straight men were given preferential opportunities, including
defendant Coticchia’s personal mentorship, even though additional opportunities were “not tied
to identifiable performance metrics.” Id. ¶ 17. In contrast, better-qualified female employees
were denied similar opportunities. Id. ¶ 18. Coticchia also made misogynistic jokes of a sexual
nature about female employees, and socialized with male employees after work, excluding
female employees from the gathering. Id. ¶ 25. Plaintiff alleges that the leadership team was
almost exclusively male, and women were routinely dismissed and “treated as second class
citizens in meetings.” Id. ¶ 19. In fact, some male employees flatly refused to work with
plaintiff because she was a woman. Id. ¶ 24.
In or around February 2023, plaintiff alleges that she participated in an internal
investigation regarding another employee’s sexual harassment complaint against a Vice
President at Sopheon. Id. ¶¶ 58-62. During the investigation, plaintiff informed Sopheon’s
Human Resources Department that the Vice President “was a problem” and confirmed that “he
had misogynistic attitudes and was very inappropriate” with women. Id. ¶ 61. After the
Case 1:25-cv-01218-RER-JRC Document 34 Filed 12/23/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
investigation, plaintiff alleges that Coticchia retaliated against her. Id. ¶ 65.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants excluded her from meetings, stripped her accounts, and
treated her with increased scrutiny, despite her having a strong performance record. Id. ¶¶ 67-70.
Plaintiff also alleges that in the spring and summer of 2023, Coticchia fired an employee who
brought a same-sex date to a work event, as well as two employees, a gay man and a woman. Id.
¶¶ 74-75. On July 5, 2023, plaintiff, along with the entire company and board, received an email
from Coticchia, in which he announced “changes to the sales leadership team.” Id. ¶ 85. Shortly
after receiving the email, plaintiff received a separation agreement via email. Id. ¶ 86.
Sopheon moves to strike the following two paragraphs of the Complaint:
91. At the time this complaint was written, Defendant Sopheon had 116 reviews
on popular “job rating” site Glassdoor.com. . . . Among a plethora of negative
assessments of the company are brutal descriptions of Defendant Coticchia as a
“charlatan” and leadership as “narcissists” who condone “rampant, blatant
cronyism.” One reviewer described the “company culture [as] a demoralizing
nightmare” and another wrote, “stress levels during time in this company is
unmatched” and said that the “managers do not care about that.” Another
asserted, “It took a toll on my mental health.”
92. Regarding practices of discrimination, one reviewer remarked that Defendant
Sopheon should “work on diversity: there have got to be more than 2 POC in the
U.S. who are qualified to work at Sopheon.” Significantly, another wrote:
“Before I resigned at least 3-4 employees have gone to HR to report toxic and
harassing behavior from management. I submitted written documentation too.
Nothing.”
Id. ¶¶ 91-92.
Sopheon argues that paragraphs 91 and 92 of the Complaint “contain a series of irrelevant
accusations and attacks by anonymous individuals designed solely to prejudice Sopheon.” Mot.
to Strike at 1. Sopheon contends that the allegations at issue contain “inadmissible and
unreliable hearsay.” Id. at 2.
Case 1:25-cv-01218-RER-JRC Document 34 Filed 12/23/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Discussion
I. 	Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a “court may strike from a
pleading . . . any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(f). “Motions to strike call for an extreme remedy, and therefore they are disfavored and
rarely granted.” Bank of Am., N.A. v. Vanderbilt Trading USA LLC, No. 17-CV-7167, 2019 WL
8807747, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see
Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 51 n.42 (2d Cir. 2019) (“motions to strike material solely on the
ground that the matter is impertinent and immaterial are disfavored”). The Second Circuit has
cautioned that district courts “should not tamper with the pleadings unless there is a strong
reason for doing so.” Lipsky v. Commonwealth United Corp., 551 F.2d 887, 893 (2d Cir. 1976).
“A party moving to strike has a high burden and must demonstrate that: (1) no evidence
in support of the allegations would be admissible; (2) that the allegations have no bearing on the
issues in the case; and (3) that to permit the allegations to stand would result in prejudice to the
movant.” Eckhart v. Fox News Network, LLC, No. 20-CV-5593, 2021 WL 4124616, at *26
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2021) (citation omitted); see Lynch v. Southampton Animal Shelter Found.
Inc., 278 F.R.D. 55, 69 (E.D.N.Y. 2011).
A. 	Prejudice
First, Sopheon has failed to establish that it would be prejudiced if the allegations were
permitted to stand. See Meyenhofer v. Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd., 503 F. Supp. 3d 39, 51
(S.D.N.Y. 2020) (“despite whether the allegations may be ‘embarrass[ing],’ Defendants have not
shown that they will cause prejudice to them in this case”); Torre v. Charter Commc’ns, 493 F.
Supp. 3d 276, 290 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 2020) (denying motion to strike for lack of prejudice where
Case 1:25-cv-01218-RER-JRC Document 34 Filed 12/23/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
defendant “could arguably satisfy the first two requirements”); Casiano v. Cnty. of Nassau, No.
16-CV-1194, 2016 WL 7667287, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2016) (denying motion to strike
“hearsay statements” for lack of prejudice), report and recommendation adopted, 2017 WL
78892 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2017). The allegations challenged by Sopheon merely recite publicly-
available information posted on the website, https://www.glassdoor.com. See Compl. ¶¶ 91, 92
& n.1. Given that the identical comments are publicly available, “any prejudice to defendants is
purely speculative.” Nimmons v. United States Tennis Ass’n, No. 18-CV-2499, 2019 WL
8197772, at *7 & n.9 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2019); see Meyenhofer, 503 F. Supp. 3d at 51; Torre, 493
F. Supp. 3d at 290; Lynch, 278 F.R.D. at 66-68 (allegations that are “part of the public record and
generally available detract[s] from any potential prejudice”).
B. 	Admissibility
Sopheon relies heavily on the hearsay nature of the anonymous reviews, arguing that
“Courts have often excluded anonymous or voluntary surveys as irrelevant and unreliable.”
Reply Ltr. at 2 (Dkt. 28). However, the cases cited by Sopheon are inapposite since they involve
evidentiary rulings at trial, rather than motions to strike allegations in pleadings. See id. (citing
Van Brunte-Piehler v. Absolute Software, Inc., 744 F. Supp. 3d 277, 290-91 (W.D.N.Y. 2024)).
In contrast, courts have frequently denied motions to strike allegations on the grounds that they
include anonymous postings or hearsay. See Eckhart, 2021 WL 4124616, at *25 (denying
motion to strike “allegations involving anonymous recipients of inappropriate messages”); Torre,
493 F. Supp. 3d at 290 (denying motion to strike “allegations that are based solely on hearsay”);
Restis v. Am. Coalition Against Nuclear Iran, Inc., 53 F. Supp. 3d 705, 731 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30,
2014) (denying motion to strike allegations containing “offensive Facebook comments” and
“claims of non-parties”).
Case 1:25-cv-01218-RER-JRC Document 34 Filed 12/23/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
“The granting of a motion to strike scandalous matter is aimed, in part, at avoiding
prejudice to a party by preventing a jury from seeing the offensive matter or giving the
allegations any other unnecessary notoriety inasmuch as, once filed, pleadings generally are
public documents and become generally available.” Lynch, 278 F.R.D. at 67 (quoting 5C Fed.
Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1382 (3d ed. 2011)). However, at this early stage of the case, the Court
need not determine whether the jury will see these allegations or whether they are relevant and
admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Lynch, 278 F.R.D. at 67, 68; Meyenhofer, 503
F. Supp. 3d at 51 (“evidentiary claims that the allegations[’] probative value is outweighed by
the potential for prejudice are properly reserved for trial”). Such evidentiary determinations
“‘require the context of an ongoing and unfolding trial in which to be properly decided’ and in
any event should not be decided ‘on the sterile field of the pleadings alone.’” Lynch, 278 F.R.D.
at 68 (quoting Lipsky, 551 F.2d at 893).
C. 	Relevance
In any event, Sopheon has not established that the allegations are irrelevant to plaintiff’s
claims of gender and sexual orientation discrimination. In the Complaint, plaintiff alleges that
Sopheon operates as a “toxic,” “old boy’s club,” in which defendant Coticchia gives preferential
treatment to his “cronies.” Compl. ¶ 7. Paragraph 91 of the Complaint similarly contains
complaints of “rampant, blatant cronyism,” resulting in a “company culture [that is] a
demoralizing nightmare.” Id. ¶ 91.
Paragraph 92 includes reference to reviews complaining that Sopheon needed to “work
on diversity” and that “at least 3-4 employees have gone to HR to report toxic and harassing
behavior from management.” Id. ¶ 92. Accordingly, allegations concerning the company’s
“cronyism” and lack of “diversity” are relevant to demonstrating the background and
Case 1:25-cv-01218-RER-JRC Document 34 Filed 12/23/25 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
environment where the alleged discrimination occurred. See Illiano v. Mineola Union Free Sch.
Dist., 585 F. Supp. 2d 341, 357 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (“Although the Plaintiff’s religion-based hostile
work environment claim has been dismissed, the allegations underlying that claim are still
relevant to establishing the overall office environment.”). At a minimum, at this early stage of
the case, the Court cannot find that the allegations “have no possible relation to the plaintiff’s
cause of action.” Nimmons, 2019 WL 8197772, at *8.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court respectfully recommends that the District Court
deny Sopheon’s motion to strike.
A copy of this Report and Recommendation is being electronically served on counsel.
Any objections to the recommendations made in this Report must be filed with the Honorable
Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. within 14 days after the filing of this Report and Recommendation and, in
any event, on or before January 6, 2026. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
Failure to file timely objections may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(d), 72; Small v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 892
F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (discussing waiver under the former ten-day limit).
SO ORDERED
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
December 23, 2025
s/ James R. Cho
James R. Cho
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-01218-RER-JRC Document 34 Filed 12/23/25 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>