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, )

Download PDF
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

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?