Ferrell et al v. Turner et al
ORDER denying 162 Motion to Strike Signed by District Judge Henry T. Wingate on 3/6/2018 (ab)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WAYNE E. FERRELL, JR.; JAMES W.
NOBLES, JR.; and ANGELO DORZIAS
CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-657-HTW-LRA
TAB TURNER a/k/a C. TAB TURNER,
CLYDE TALBOT TURNER,
CLYDE T. TURNER, CLYDE TAB TURNER and
TAB CLYDE TURNER, and
TURNER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
BEFORE THIS COURT is plaintiffs James Nobles and Angelo Dorizas’ Motion to Strike
Turner’s Affidavit [Docket no. 162]. Turner submitted an affidavit in support of his response to
plaintiff Wayne Ferrell’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment. [Docket no. 158-1].
By their motion, Nobles and Doizas ask this court to strike Turner’s Affidavit for two (2)
reasons: that the affidavit is in violation of F.R.C.P. 5.21; and that the affidavit allegedly contains
conclusory allegations and impermissible legal opinions.
Turner opposes Nobles and Dorizas’ Motion to Strike, stating that his affidavit is a
recitation of the facts of this case as he sees them. Turner also says any alleged violation of
F.R.C.P. 5.2 is moot because he has filed corrected disclosures under seal.
(a) Redacted Filings. Unless the court orders otherwise, in an electronic or paper filing with the court that contains
an individual's social-security number, taxpayer-identification number, or birth date, the name of an individual known
to be a minor, or a financial-account number, a party or nonparty making the filing may include only:
(1) the last four digits of the social-security number and taxpayer-identification number;
(2) the year of the individual's birth;
(3) the minor's initials; and
(4) the last four digits of the financial-account number.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2
This court has reviewed the docket report and finds that any alleged error or violation of
Rule 5.2 has already been corrected because this court already ordered Turner’s affidavit sealed to
prevent the release of the financial information about which Nobles and Dorizas complain. See
Agreed Order. [Docket no. 168]. This court, therefore, finds Nobles and Dorizas’ motion based on
an alleged violation of F.R.C.P. 5.2 is moot.
Conclusory Allegations and Impermissible Legal Conclusions
Nobles and Dorizas complain that Turner’s Affidavit is “fraught with conclusory
allegations and opinions as to the applicable law.” [Docket no. 163]. The movants, Nobles and
Dorizas, cite three cases which they say stand for the proposition that parties – specifically
attorneys – cannot opine about legal conclusions in their own cases. See Stagman v. Ryan, 176
F.3d 986 (10th Cir. 1999); Askanase v. Fatjo, 130 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 1997); and Specht v. Jensen,
853 F.2d 805 (10th Cir. 1988). Nobles and Dorizas are correct that an attorney-party may not testify
about legal conclusions as this would invade the province of the court and the jury.
Turner responds that the factual assertions in his affidavit are his recitation of the facts of
this lawsuit as he sees them, not an attempt to interject his facts as the facts this court must accept.
Turner further responds that Askanase and Specht are clearly distinguishable, as they are cases in
which the respective United States Courts of Appeals refused to allow attorneys as expert
witnesses. In the lawsuit at bar Turner is a party and not acting in an expert witness capacity nor
as an attorney. Parties are clearly allowed to testify about their version of the facts. Further, this
court is persuaded that Turner’s usage of terms of art throughout his affidavit do not invalidate the
affidavit. This court, therefore, finds that Noble and Dorizas’ motion fails on these grounds as
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED James Nobles and Angelo Dorizas’ Motion to Strike
Turner’s Affidavit [Docket no. 162] is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED this the 6th day of March, 2018.
s/ HENRY T. WINGATE___________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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?