Gipson v. Hyundai Power Transformers, USA, Inc.

Filing 120

OPINION AND ORDER: It is ORDERED that: 1) The parties' 114 & 115 objections to the magistrate judge's 110 recommendation are sustained in part and overruled in part; 2) The magistrate judge's 110 recommendation is adopted as to plf William Gipson's failure to disclose James Chew as a potential witness, and the 110 recommendation is rejected as moot in all other respects; 3) Dft Hyundai Power Transformers USA, Inc.'s 92 motion to strike is denied as to plf Gipson's failure to disclose James Chew as a potential witness, and the 92 motion is denied as moot in all other respects. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/8/2019.(alm, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
WILLIAM GIPSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
HYUNDAI POWER TRANSFORMERS
USA, INC.,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:17cv498-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the magistrate
judge’s

recommendation

on

defendant

Hyundai

Transformers USA, Inc.’s motion to strike.

Power

With regard

to the question of plaintiff William Gipson’s failure
to

disclose

James

Chew

as

a

potential

witness,

the

court agrees with the magistrate judge that the motion
should be denied.

With regard to all other aspects of

the motion, which mainly concern whether evidence is
hearsay
pending

and

admissible,

the

summary-judgment

court,
motion,

in

resolving

has

the

implicitly

considered the motion as a notice of objections to the
testimony

described

and

has

considered

briefs as arguments on the objections.

any

related

See Norman v.

Southern Guar. Ins. Co., 191 F. Supp. 2d 1321, 1328
(M.D. Ala. 2002) (Thompson, J.); Anderson v. Radisson
Hotel Corp., 834 F. Supp.
1993) (Bowen, J.).

1364, 1368 n.1 (S.D. Ga.

The court is capable of sifting

evidence, as required by the summary-judgment standard,
without resorting to an exclusionary process, and the
court

will

not

allow

the

summary-judgment

stage

degenerate into a battle of motions to strike.

to
The

magistrate judge’s recommendation will be rejected as
moot

in

strike

these
will

be

remaining
denied

aspects,
as

aspects.

2

moot

and
in

the
these

motion

to

remaining

***
It is ORDERED that:
(1) The parties’ objections (doc. nos. 114 and 115)
to the magistrate judge’s recommendation are sustained
in part and overruled in part.
(2) The magistrate judge’s recommendation (doc. no.
110)

is

adopted

as

to

plaintiff

William

Gipson’s

failure to disclose James Chew as a potential witness,
and the recommendation is rejected as moot in all other
respects.
(3) Defendant

Hyundai

Power

Transformers

USA,

Inc.’s motion to strike (doc. no. 92) is denied as to
plaintiff Gipson’s failure to disclose James Chew as a
potential witness, and the motion is denied as moot in
all other respects.
DONE, this the 8th day of July, 2019.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3