Pitts v. The City of Tuskegee et al

Filing 31

ORDERED as follows: (1) The plaintiff's motion to strike (doc. no. 26 ) is denied. (2) However, to the extent the plaintiff is merely objecting to the admissibility of evidence, the defendants are allowed until October 16, 2015 to respond, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/9/2015. (kh, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

JONATHAN PITTS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF TUSKEGEE,
et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:14cv1027-MHT
(WO)

ORDER
It is ORDERED as follows:
(1) The plaintiff’s motion to strike (doc. no. 26)
is denied.
(2) However, to the extent the plaintiff is merely
objecting
defendants

to

the

are

admissibility

allowed

until

of

October

evidence,
16,

2015

the
to

respond.
In resolving the pending summary-judgment motion,
the

court

strike

as

described.

has
a

implicitly

notice

of

considered

objections

to

the
the

motion

to

testimony

See Norman v. Southern Guar. Ins. Co., 191

F. Supp. 2d 1321, 1328 (M.D. Ala. 2002); Anderson v.
Radisson Hotel Corp., 834 F. Supp. 1364, 1368 n. 1
(S.D.

Ga.

1993).

The

court

is

capable

of

sifting

evidence, as required by the summary-judgment standard,
without
court

resort

will

not

to

an

allow

exclusionary
the

process,

summary-judgment

degenerate into a battle of motions to strike.
as

is

apparent

from

this

order,

the

and

the

stage

to

Rather,

court

will

entertain briefs on the admissibility of evidence.
DONE, this the 9th day of October, 2015.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE