Morgan Fabrics Corporation v. Acacia Design, Inc.

Filing 60

ORDER denying 44 Motion to Strike. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 8/20/2015. (geb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
MORGAN FABRICS CORP.
V.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-234-SA-DAS

ACACIA DESIGN, INC.

DEFENDANT
ORDER

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction [26], seeking to prohibit Defendant
from selling fabric that allegedly infringes on Plaintiff’s design. Defendant responded to the
preliminary injunction motion on June 9, 2015, the final day of the Court-extended period for
such a response. Because the response was not accompanied by a separate memorandum as
required by the District’s Uniform Local Civil Rules, the Clerk of Court issued a Notice of
Correction on June 10, requesting that Defendant refile its response correctly. The same day,
Defendant filed its memorandum opposing the preliminary injunction and attached a declaration
of Anthony Teague, an individual who allegedly has knowledge and experience concerning both
of the designs at issue in this case. The Teague declaration was not docketed until after the
Clerk’s Notice of Correction and after the deadline for Defendant’s response had passed.
Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Strike [44] the Teague declaration as untimely. The Court
finds that, in the interest of justice, the Teague declaration should not be stricken. Plaintiff has
already taken the opportunity to lodge evidentiary objections to the Teague declaration, both in
its Motion to Strike [44] and in a separately docketed entry [42].1 Additionally, the Court has set
a preliminary injunction hearing for September 9, 2015, at which time Plaintiff will be able to

1

The Court notes that in addition to Defendant’s objections to the Teague declaration, a significant number of other
evidentiary objections have been lodged in respect to the requested preliminary injunction. The parties should be
aware that the Court will consider the evidence it deems relevant to the decision and, at the preliminary injunction
stage “may employ informal procedures and rely on generally inadmissible evidence . . . .” Jackson Women’s Health
Org. v. Currier, 760 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter v. F.D.I.C., 992 F.2d
545, 551 (5th Cir. 1993)).

more fully respond to any averments made in the Teague declaration. Thus, the Court finds the
possibility that undue prejudice will be caused to Plaintiff by consideration of the declaration to
be insubstantial. The Motion to Strike [44] is denied.
SO ORDERED, this the 20th day of August, 2015.

/s/ Sharion Aycock
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2