ORDER

DEBORAH BARNES, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff commenced this social security action on November 7, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) Both parties have previously consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF Nos. 7 & 8.) On March 9, 2018, defendant filed a motion to strike plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 22.) Therein, defendant argues that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment should be stricken because it was filed three months late. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on April 13, 2018. (ECF No. 24.)

A motion to strike pursuant to Rule 12(f) allows a court to strike "from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). "[T]he function of a 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial. . . ." Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft, Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993)), rev'd on other grounds by Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 114 (1994); see also Sidney-Vinstein v. A.H. Robins Co., 697 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1983).

A motion to strike is well-taken when "it is clear that the matter to be stricken could have no possible bearing on the subject matter of litigation." LeDuc v. Kentucky Central Life Ins. Co., 814 F.Supp. 820, 830 (N.D. Cal. 1992). Impertinent allegations are those that are not responsive or relevant to issues involved in the action and which could not be admitted as evidence in the litigation. Fantasy, Inc., 984 F.2d at 1527. "Scandalous" within the meaning of Rule 12(f) includes allegations that cast a cruelly derogatory light on a party or other person. Talbot v. Robert Mathews Distributing Co., 961 F.2d 654, 665 (7th Cir. 1992).

Ultimately, whether to grant a motion to strike applying these standards lies within the sound discretion of the district court. Fantasy, Inc., 984 F.2d at 1527; see also California Dept. of Toxic Substances Control v. Alco Pacific, Inc., 217 F.Supp.2d 1028, 1032-33 (C.D. Cal. 2002).1

Here, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment does not contain an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. Although defendant is correct that plaintiff's motion is untimely, striking plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is an extreme sanction for such a violation, especially in the absence of any prejudice suffered by defendant. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, to ensure compliance with the court's orders and all applicable deadlines.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant's March 9, 2018 motion to strike (ECF No. 22) is denied;

2. Defendant shall file an opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment within 30 days from the date of this order; and

3. Plaintiff's reply, if any, shall be filed within 20 days from service of defendant's opposition.