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, )

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