Bingham v. BayCare Health System

Filing 195

ORDER denying 183 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed on 12/16/2016. (JR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
THOMAS BINGHAM,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:14-cv-73-T-23JSS

BAYCARE HEALTH SYSTEM,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Strike.

(Dkt. 183.)

Defendant, BayCare Health System, moves to strike the declaration of Plaintiff, qui tam relator
Thomas Bingham, filed in support of his Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Dkt. 169, Ex. 7) on the basis that Plaintiff lacks personal knowledge
regarding the statements in the declaration and offers improper legal argument and opinion.
In this case, Plaintiff alleges that BayCare improperly claimed a tax exemption for the
Suncoast Medical Office Building (“Suncoast MOB”), thereby passing an improper benefit to the
physicians practicing in the Suncoast MOB. Plaintiff contends that the property appraiser’s
decision to grant a tax exemption was erroneous because it did not consider certain documents,
which were allegedly omitted by BayCare. (Dkts. 156, Ex. 11.); (Dkt. 169, Ex. 7.)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, a declaration used to oppose a motion for
summary judgment “must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible
in evidence, and show that the . . . declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(c)(4). In his declaration, Plaintiff provides his “opinion or inference regarding the
documents that BayCare submitted or failed to submit” to the property appraiser. (Dkt. 189 at 4.)

Plaintiff acknowledges that the declaration merely states his “opinion,” “perceptions,” and
“inference” on this matter. (Dkt. 189 at 4.) As such, his statements are based on personal
knowledge and constitute lay witness opinions. See Fed. R. Evid. 701 (allowing lay witness
testimony in the form of opinions or inferences). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s
Motion to Strike (Dkt. 183) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on December 16, 2016.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

-2-