Burns et al v. U.S. Bank, N.A. et al, No. 3:2012cv00293 - Document 25 (M.D. Ala. 2013)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER that defendants U.S. Bank, N.A. and Bank of America, N.A.'s motion to strike evidence 21 is denied as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 1/30/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(jg, )
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION EDGAR L. BURNS, JR., and MELANIE BURNS, Plaintiffs, v. U.S. BANK, N.A., and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12cv293-MHT (WO) OPINION AND ORDER It is ORDERED that defendants U.S. Bank, N.A. and Bank of America, N.A. s motion to strike evidence (Doc. No. 21) is denied under the conditions set forth below. *** The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure delineate the general use of a motion to strike: The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. Civ. P. 12(f) (emphasis added). Fed. R. The terms of the rule make clear that [o]nly material included in a pleading may be subject of a motion to strike.... or memoranda, objections, or Motions, briefs affidavits attacked by the motion to strike. may not be 2 James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore's Federal Practice ยง 12.37[2] (3d ed. 1999). Therefore, as an initial matter, the motion to strike must be denied as to all non-pleadings, and, in this case, that would be all documents at issue. v. Hoffman, 188 F.R.D. 651, 653 (M.D. See Lowery Ala. 1999) (Thompson, J.); Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) (a pleading is (1) a complaint; (2) an answer to a complaint; (3) an answer to a counterclaim designated as a counterclaim; (4) an answer to a crossclaim; (5) a third-party complaint; (6) an answer to a third-party complaint; and (7) if the court orders one, a reply to an answer. ). Nevertheless, summary-judgment in motion, resolving the court the will pending implicitly consider the motion to strike as, instead, a notice of objections to the testimony 2 described. Norman v. Southern Guar. Ins. Co., 191 F. Supp. 2d 1321, 1328 (M.D. Ala. 2002) (Thompson, J.); Anderson v. Radisson Hotel Corp., 834 F. Supp. 1364, 1368 n.1 (S.D. Ga. 1993) (Bowen, J.). The court is capable of sifting evidence, as required by the summary-judgment standard, without resort to an exclusionary process, and the court will not allow the summary-judgment stage to degenerate into a battle of motions to strike. DONE, this the 30th day of January, 2013. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE