Bielski v. Alfred Saliba Corporation, et al

Filing 81

ORDER denying 50 Motion to Strike, as further set out. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/15/13. (scn, )

Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION KATHRYN BIELSKI, Plaintiff, v. ALFRED SALIBA CORPORATION, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12cv1049-MHT (WO) OPINION AND ORDER Defendant Alfred Saliba Corporation has filed a motion to strike portions of an affidavit which plaintiff Kathryn Bielski offered in response to the motion for summary judgment. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) applies only to pleadings: “The insufficient court defense may or strike any from a redundant, pleading an immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Defendant’s motion to “strike” evidence in a response to a motion for summary judgement is not a request to strike material from a pleading. Mann v. Darden, 2009 WL 2019588 (M.D. Ala. July 6, 2009). Nevertheless, in resolving the defendant’s summary-judgment motion, the court has implicitly considered the motion to strike as, instead, an objection to the evidence offered by plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2) (“A party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence.”). The court is capable of sifting through the evidence, as required by the summary-judgment process, without resort to an exclusionary process. *** Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendant Alfred Saliba Corporation’s motion to strike (Doc. No. 50) is denied. DONE, this the 15th day of October. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?