MEMORANDUM ORDER

MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge.

United Recovery Systems, LP ("United") has filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses ("ADs") to the Complaint brought against it by Angela Ruge ("Ruge"). This Court's sua sponte issuance of this memorandum order is occasioned by two problematic aspects of that responsive pleading.

First, a number of the Answer's paragraphs (Answer ¶¶ 1, 6, 8-10, 29 and 42-44) impermissibly assert that no response to the corresponding allegations of Ruge's Complaint is required because each of those allegations "constitutes a legal conclusion." Not so — see App'x ¶ 2 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D. Ill. 2001). All of those assertions by United are stricken, and its counsel must respond to each of the challenged allegations.

Next up are a number of paragraphs (Answer ¶¶ 3, 6, 11-15, 20, 24 and 44) that call into play the disclaimer provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(5). No view is expressed here as to the substantive propriety or lack of propriety of any of those disclaimers — instead this memorandum order focuses on the impermissible assertion "and therefore denies the same" that follows each disclaimer.1 It is of course oxymoronic for a party to assert (presumably in good faith) that it lacks even enough information to form a belief as to the truth of an allegation, then proceed to deny it. Because such a denial is at odds with the pleader's obligations under Rule 11(b), the quoted language is stricken from each of those paragraphs of the Answer.

To avoid the nuisance of any reader's having to jump from document to document to see what matters are placed in issue and what matters are not, the present Answer is stricken in its entirety. That striking is of course without prejudice, with leave granted to file a self-contained Amended Answer on or before April 27, 2016.