Kokak LLC v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company
Filing
80
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTS the Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Designation of Evidence 53 ; the Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement its Appendix 61 ; the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply 62 ; and the Plaintiff's Second Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply to the Defendant's Reply in Support of the Defendant's Motion to Strike the Plaintiff's Evidence 70 . The Court also DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Plaintiff's fi rst Motion to Strike Exhibits and Purported Undisputed Facts 47 ; the Defendant's Motion to Strike Certain Portions of Plaintiff's Designation of Evidence 54 ; the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant's Reply in Su pport of Its Motion for Summary Judgment 59 ; the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Portions of the Defendant's Replies (Doc 63 and Doc 64 ) to its Motions to Supplement Evidence and Strike the Plaintiff's Evidence 68 . Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 3/31/2021. (bas)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
KOKAK LLC D/B/A PROFESSIONAL
VAULT STORAGE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAUSE NO.: 2:18-CV-177-TLS
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on eight Motions filed by the parties in conjunction with
the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 45]:
1. The Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Exhibits and Purported Undisputed Facts [ECF No.
47];
2. The Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Designation of Evidence
[ECF No. 53];
3. The Defendant’s Motion to Strike Certain Portions of Plaintiff’s Designation of
Evidence [ECF No. 54];
4. The Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant’s Reply in Support of Its
Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 59];
5. The Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement its Appendix [ECF No. 61];
6. The Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply [ECF No. 62];
7. The Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Defendant’s Replies (Doc 63 and Doc
64) to its Motions to Supplement Evidence and Strike the Plaintiff’s Evidence [ECF
No. 68];
8. The Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply to the Defendant’s Reply
in Support of the Defendant’s Motion to Strike the Plaintiff’s Evidence [ECF No. 70].
In general, “[a] party who wishes to argue that portions of a statement of genuine issues
contain errors or are inadmissible on evidentiary grounds may file a motion to strike those
portions of the statement of genuine issues.” Mayes v. City of Hammond, Indiana, 442 F. Supp.
2d 587, 596 (N.D. Ind. 2006) (citing Goltz v. Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac, 177 F.R.D. 638, 640
(N.D. Ind. 1997)); see also 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.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4) (“An affidavit or declaration used to support or oppose a
motion must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence,
and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated.”).
However, “it is the function of a court, with or without a motion to strike, to review
carefully both statements of material facts and statements of genuine issues . . . and to eliminate
from consideration any argument, conclusions, and assertions unsupported by the documented
evidence of record offered in support of the statement.” Mayes, 442 F. Supp. 2d at 596
(collecting cases); accord Potts v. A & A Mfg. Co. Inc., No. 2:07-CV-167, 2010 WL 427762, at
*1 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 29, 2010); see also Vaught v. Quality Corr. Care, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-346,
2018 WL 1900153, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 19, 2018) (“Because the Court is able to distinguish
which exhibits, affidavits, statements, and commentary may properly be considered when
2
deciding whether summary judgment is appropriate, the Court declines to strike these statements
from the Plaintiff’s Memorandum.”).
The Motions often interrelate to each other; all the Motions relate to evidence or
argument submitted in support or opposition to Summary Judgment. The Court has reviewed all
the parties’ submissions. Therefore, the Court will grant all the motions to supplement the
evidence or file sur-replies and will evaluate any objections to submissions during the course of
the Court’s review of the Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Court GRANTS the Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Designation
of Evidence [ECF No. 53]; the Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement its Appendix [ECF No. 61]; the
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply [ECF No. 62]; and the Plaintiff’s Second Motion
for Leave to File a Sur-Reply to the Defendant’s Reply in Support of the Defendant’s Motion to
Strike the Plaintiff’s Evidence [ECF No. 70].
The Court also DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Plaintiff’s first Motion to Strike
Exhibits and Purported Undisputed Facts [ECF No. 47]; the Defendant’s Motion to Strike
Certain Portions of Plaintiff’s Designation of Evidence [ECF No. 54]; the Plaintiff’s Motion to
Strike Portions of Defendant’s Reply in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No.
59]; the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Defendant’s Replies (Doc 63 and Doc 64) to
its Motions to Supplement Evidence and Strike the Plaintiff’s Evidence [ECF No. 68].
SO ORDERED on March 31, 2021.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
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?