Dunn et al v. Thomas et al

Filing 883

PHASE 2 ORDER ON MOTIONS TO STRIKE: It is ORDERED that defendants' motions to strike (doc. nos. 806 & 875 ) briefs filed by plaintiffs are denied under the conditions set forth. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/20/2016. (kh, )

Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION JOSHUA DUNN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14cv601-MHT (WO) PHASE 2 ORDER ON MOTIONS TO STRIKE It is ORDERED that defendants’ motions to strike (doc. nos. 806 & 875) briefs filed by plaintiffs are denied under the conditions set forth below. Federal delineates Rule the of Civil general use Procedure of a 12(f), motion to which strike, provides as follows: “Upon motion made by a party ... the court may insufficient order defense stricken from or redundant, any impertinent, or scandalous matter.” any pleading any immaterial, (Emphasis added.) The terms of the rule make clear that “[o]nly material included in a ‘pleading’ may be subject of a motion to strike. ... Motion, briefs or memoranda, objections, or affidavits may not be attacked by the motion to strike.” 2 Moore’s Fed. Prac. § 12.37[2] (3d ed. 1999). Therefore, as an initial matter, these motions to strike will be denied as to all non-pleadings--that is, all of the documents at issue in these motions. See Lowery v. Hoffman, 188 F.R.D. 651 (M.D. Ala. 1999); Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) (defining a “pleading”). Defendants’ third motion to strike (doc. no. 809) and the sole pending issue in plaintiffs’ motion to strike (doc. no. 838) will remain before the court, as they present related issues and will be resolved in a forthcoming opinion. Nevertheless, in resolving the pending summary-judgment and class-certification motions, the court will consider the denied motions to strike as, instead, notices of objections. See Norman v. S. Guar. Ins. Co., 191 F. Supp. 2d 1321, 1328 (M.D. Ala. 2002) 2 (Thompson, J.); Anderson v. Radisson Hotel Corp., 834 F. Supp. 1364, 1368 n.1 (S.D. Ga. 1993) (Bowen, J.). The court required is capable by the class-certification of sifting evidence, summary-judgment standards, without resort as and to an exclusionary process. The court will not allow the summary-judgment class-certification and stage degenerate into a battle of motions to strike. to The parties are not to file additional motions to strike in this case unless they comply with the letter of Rule 12(f) and pertain exclusively to “pleadings” within the meaning of Rule 7(a); any non-compliant motions to strike will be summarily denied. DONE, this the 20th day of October, 2016. /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?