Thomas v. Oklahoma Land Holdings LLC et al

Filing 163

ORDER denying defendant's 108 Motion to Strike. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 02/13/2020. (ac)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

OKLAHOMA LAND HOLDINGS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
BMR II, LLC and ANDREW M. ASHBY,
Defendants.

Case No. CIV-17-1036-D

ORDER
Defendants1 BMR II, LLC, and Andrew M. Ashby (“Defendants”) bring before the
Court a Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 76]. Plaintiff Oklahoma Land Holdings,
LLC, has filed a Response [Doc. Nos. 89, 104] in opposition, to which Defendants have
replied [Doc. No. 111]. Plaintiff subsequently filed a sur-reply with leave of Court [Doc.
No. 116].
Defendants filed a Motion to Strike [Doc. No. 108], asking that the Court strike
certain exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s Response. Plaintiff responded in opposition to the
Motion to Strike [Doc. No. 120], and Defendants replied [Doc. No. 123].

1

At one point during this litigation, Defendants herein were designated as Third-Party
Defendants. Plaintiff herein was one of several Defendants also designated as CounterPlaintiffs and Third-Party Plaintiffs. Following the dismissal of several claims and parties,
the case style was modified to reflect the accurate burdens and relationships of the parties.
See Motion to Modify Case Style [Doc. No. 86]; Order [Doc. No. 98]. This Order reflects
the correct relationships and modified case style.
1

STANDARD OF DECISION
The language and corresponding advisory committee notes of Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c)(2) explain 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c)(2). Congress amended Rule 56 in 2010 to include this language. Before this
amendment, parties properly challenged evidence used in a summary judgment motion by
filing a motion to strike. See Rule 56, advisory committee’s note (2010) (“There is no need
to file a separate motion to strike.”). “The plain meaning of these provisions show[s] that
objecting to the admissibility of evidence supporting a summary judgment motion is now
a part of summary judgment procedure, rather than a separate motion to be handled
preliminarily.” Campbell v. Shinseki, 546 F. App’x 874, 879 (11th Cir. 2013); Cutting
Underwater Techns. USA, Inc. v. Eni U.S. Operating Co., 671 F.3d 512, 515 (5th Cir.2012)
(“[I]t is no longer necessary for a party to file such a motion; instead, a party may simply
object to the material.”).
DISCUSSION
In keeping with the 2010 changes to Rule56(c)(2), the Court will consider
Defendants’ Motion to Strike [Doc. No. 108] as an objection to the admissibility of the
challenged evidence. This Motion and all related filings will be addressed in the Court’s
forthcoming Order ruling on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike [Doc. No.
108] DENIED.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of February, 2020.

3