Todd v. City of LaFayette, Alabama et al
OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED that dfts' 70 & 79 Motions to strike are denied. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/12/2013. (wcl, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION
CITY OF LAFAYETTE, et al., )
CIVIL ACTION NO.
OPINION AND ORDER
The cause is before the court on the defendants’
motions to strike.
evidentiary material from the record on summary judgment.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, however, restrict
the use of a motion to strike to the pleadings.
to strike is not an appropriate vehicle for a general
attack on the government’s affidavits and evidence.
Lowery v. Hoffman, 188 F.R.D. 651, 653 (M.D. Ala 1999)
(Thompson, J.); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f); see also 2 James
Wm. Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 12.37
(3d ed. 1999) (“Only material included in a ‘pleading’
may be subject of a motion to strike .... Motions, briefs
attacked by the motion to strike.”).
The correct approach is to object to an opposing
party’s factual assertion on the ground that it “cannot
be presented in a form that would be admissible in
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2).
The court will
construe the motions to strike as notice of objections in
Where those objections bear on the disposition of the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment, they will be
discussed in this court’s summary-judgment opinion.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendants’ motions
to strike (Doc. Nos. 70 & 79) are denied.
DONE, this the 12th day of March, 2013.
/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?