Pitts v. The City of Tuskegee et al
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
THE CITY OF TUSKEGEE,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
It is ORDERED as follows:
(1) The plaintiff’s motion to strike (doc. no. 26)
(2) However, to the extent the plaintiff is merely
In resolving the pending summary-judgment motion,
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
evidence, as required by the summary-judgment standard,
degenerate into a battle of motions to strike.
entertain briefs on the admissibility of evidence.
DONE, this the 9th day of October, 2015.
/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?