Morgan v. Saehaesung Alabama, Inc.

Filing 46

OPINION AND ORDER: It is ORDERED that plaintiff Michael Morgan's 24 Motion to Strike and defendant Saehaesung Alabama, Inc.s 28 Motion to Strike are denied as further set out in the opinion and order. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/18/2014. (dmn, )

Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION MICHAEL MORGAN, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. SAEHAESUNG ALABAMA, INC., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12cv816-MHT (WO) OPINION AND ORDER Both parties have filed motions to strike affidavit and deposition testimony which the other party offered with regard to defendant Saehaesung Alabama, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) applies only to pleadings: “The insufficient impertinent, court defense or may strike or any scandalous from a redundant, matter.” The pleading an immaterial, motions to “strike” evidence in a motion for summary judgement or response to that motion are not a request to strike material from a pleading. Norman v. Southern Guar. Ins. Co., 191 F. Supp. 2d 1321, 1327-28 (M.D. Ala. 2002) (Thompson, J). Nevertheless, in resolving Saehaesung’s summary-judgment motion, the court has implicitly considered the motions to strike as, instead, objections to the evidence offered. 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 summaryjudgment process, without resort to an exclusionary process. *** Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff Michael Morgan’s motion to strike (Doc. No. 24) and defendant Saehaesung Alabama, Inc.’s motion to strike (Doc. No. 28) are denied. DONE, this the 18th day of March, 2014. /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?