3. Are denials subject to the Twombly and Iqbalstandard of plausible pleading? Professor Miller has concluded that the answer is “[s]omewhat uncertain,” focusing on the absence from Rule 8

(b) of “the magic word ‘showing,’ ” and the fact that defensive pleading typically is alleged “in a formulary, conclusory, and uninformative fashion along the style illustrated in Form 30.” He adds:

If, in fact, plausibility pleading is retained and held to turn strictly on the language of Rule 8(a)(2), federal courts might not extend it to Rules 8(a)(1), 8(a)(3), 8(b), and 8(c).

If that proves to be true, the Advisory Committee would have to consider whether to revise Rule 8 in order to correct this pleading burden imbalance in deference to the quest for the metaphorical level litigation playing field. What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander. Conversely, if the new pleading structure is applied to all pleading