Krager v Pilot/Flying J, Inc.

Filing 36

ORDER denying Defendant Pilot/Flying J Inc's 30 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/24/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8

DERRY KRAGER,

9
10
11

2:10-CV-1308 JCM (PAL)

Plaintiff,
v.
PILOT/FLYING J, INC., et al.,

12
Defendants.

13
14

ORDER

15

Presently before the court is defendant Pilot/Flying J, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment.

16

(Doc. #30). Plaintiff Derry Krager filed an opposition. (Doc. #31). Defendant then filed a reply.

17

(Doc. #35).

18

In a summary judgment motion, the moving party bears the burden of informing the court

19

of the basis for its motion, together with evidence demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue

20

of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). “A trial court can only consider

21

admissible evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Orr v. Bank of America, 285

22

F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002). “Authentication is a condition precedent to admissibility . . . .” Id.

23

(internal citations omitted). Unauthenticated documents “cannot be considered in a motion for

24

summary judgment.” Id.

25

In the case at bar, the moving party has not authenticated the evidence supporting its motion

26

for summary judgment. (See Doc. #30). Without properly authenticated supporting evidence, the

27

court is not inclined to hear the instant motion for summary judgment. See Orr, 285 F.3d at 773.

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendant Pilot/Flying J,

3
4

Inc.’s motion for summary judgment (doc. #30) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED April 24, 2012.

5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-