United States of America v. Trumbull Metropolitan Housing Authority

Filing 72

Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants' Motion to Strike (ECF No. 64 ) is denied as unnecessary. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 5/11/2018. (JLG)

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

TRUMBULL METROPOLITAN HOUSING
AUTHORITY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 4:17CV101

JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER [Resolving ECF No. 64]

I.
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Strike Exhibits C and D of Plaintiffs’
Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 64. Plaintiffs-Intervenors
have filed their response. ECF No. 65. Defendants replied. ECF No. 66. For the reasons
provided below, Defendants’ motion (ECF No. 64) is denied.
II.
In anticipation of the Court’s ruling on their partial motion for summary judgment,
Defendants move to “strike Exhibits C and D (i.e., HUD’s Letter of Non-Compliance and Charge
of Discrimination) attached to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment.” ECF No. 64 at PageID#: 2154. Defendants contend that Exhibits C and D “are not
evidence and do not prove anything they are HUD’s preliminary allegations that were never
adjudicated or proven, but are now being misconstrued by Plaintiffs as ‘facts’ in this case.” Id.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for a motion to strike documents or portions

(4:17CV101)
of documents other than pleadings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) (limited to striking pleadings or
portions of pleadings). If a brief or affidavit refers to matters a court should not consider (such as
inadmissible evidence), while a court is free to exercise its discretion, the usual recourse is for
the court simply to disregard those matters, not to strike them. Lombard v. MCI Telecomm.
Corp., 13 F. Supp. 2d 621, 625 (N.D. Ohio 1998) (citing State Mut. Life Assurance Co. of Am. v.
Deer Creek Park, 612 F.2d 259, 264 (6th Cir. 1979)).
Furthermore, although Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2) provides that “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,” the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 56(c), explicitly clarify that, “[t]he
objection functions much as an objection at trial, adjusted for the pretrial setting,” and “[t]he
burden is on the proponent to show that the material is admissible as presented or to explain the
admissible form that is anticipated.” Advisory Committee’s Note to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The
Notes further assert that “[t]here is no need to make a separate motion to strike. If the case goes
to trial, failure to challenge admissibility at the summary-judgment stage does not forfeit the right
to challenge admissibility at trial.” Id.
In light of the Court’s duty to review and rely exclusively upon admissible evidence when
ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court shall fulfill its duty to consider only
admissible evidence when ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In doing so, the
portions of Plaintiffs’ opposition to that motion, and the exhibits thereto, that are not rooted in
admissible evidence will not be considered by the Court. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to
Strike (ECF No. 64) is denied as unnecessary.

2

(4:17CV101)
III.
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Strike (ECF No. 64) is denied as
unnecessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 11, 2018
Date

/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge

3