Motions to strike are strongly disfavored.  See generally Custom Vehicles, Inc. v. Forest River, Inc., 464 F.3d 725, 727 (7th Cir. 2006) (Easterbrook, J., in chambers).  They serve primarily as unauthorized vehicles for parties to expand the page limits for memoranda in support of their motions.  Motions to strike almost always would require the Court to decide significant issues (and, indeed, the underlying motion) on the merits and would multiply the briefs (because the other side should be allowed to respond).  Id. at 727. 

The Court is capable of discerning if a reply brief raises a new argument, or if a litigant has failed to comply with the requirements of Local Rule 56.1 (governing summary judgment).  Such errors do not require supplemental motion practice.  

If a party believes that the other side’s brief contains inaccurate facts or that the other side’s Local Rule 56.1 statement contains an unsupported assertion, then the complaining party should make that argument in the response or reply brief, or in the responsive 56.1 statement.  

Motions to strike that are not within the limited boundaries established by Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) may be summarily denied.