Kokak LLC v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, No. 2:2018cv00177 - Document 80 (N.D. Ind. 2021)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTS the Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Designation of Evidence 53 ; the Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement its Appendix 61 ; the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply 62 ; and the Plaintiff's Second Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply to the Defendant's Reply in Support of the Defendant's Motion to Strike the Plaintiff's Evidence 70 . The Court also DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Plaintiff's fi rst Motion to Strike Exhibits and Purported Undisputed Facts 47 ; the Defendant's Motion to Strike Certain Portions of Plaintiff's Designation of Evidence 54 ; the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant's Reply in Su pport of Its Motion for Summary Judgment 59 ; the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Portions of the Defendant's Replies (Doc 63 and Doc 64 ) to its Motions to Supplement Evidence and Strike the Plaintiff's Evidence 68 . Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 3/31/2021. (bas)

Download PDF

Kokak LLC v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company Doc. 80 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION KOKAK LLC D/B/A PROFESSIONAL VAULT STORAGE, Plaintiff, v. CAUSE NO.: 2:18-CV-177-TLS AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on eight Motions filed by the parties in conjunction with the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 45]: 1. The Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Exhibits and Purported Undisputed Facts [ECF No. 47]; 2. The Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Designation of Evidence [ECF No. 53]; 3. The Defendant’s Motion to Strike Certain Portions of Plaintiff’s Designation of Evidence [ECF No. 54]; 4. The Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant’s Reply in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 59]; 5. The Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement its Appendix [ECF No. 61]; 6. The Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply [ECF No. 62]; Dockets.Justia.com 7. The Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Defendant’s Replies (Doc 63 and Doc 64) to its Motions to Supplement Evidence and Strike the Plaintiff’s Evidence [ECF No. 68]; 8. The Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply to the Defendant’s Reply in Support of the Defendant’s Motion to Strike the Plaintiff’s Evidence [ECF No. 70]. In general, “[a] party who wishes to argue that portions of a statement of genuine issues contain errors or are inadmissible on evidentiary grounds may file a motion to strike those portions of the statement of genuine issues.” Mayes v. City of Hammond, Indiana, 442 F. Supp. 2d 587, 596 (N.D. Ind. 2006) (citing Goltz v. Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac, 177 F.R.D. 638, 640 (N.D. Ind. 1997)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2) (“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)(4) (“An affidavit or declaration used to support or oppose a motion must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated.”). However, “it is the function of a court, with or without a motion to strike, to review carefully both statements of material facts and statements of genuine issues . . . and to eliminate from consideration any argument, conclusions, and assertions unsupported by the documented evidence of record offered in support of the statement.” Mayes, 442 F. Supp. 2d at 596 (collecting cases); accord Potts v. A & A Mfg. Co. Inc., No. 2:07-CV-167, 2010 WL 427762, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 29, 2010); see also Vaught v. Quality Corr. Care, LLC, No. 1:15-CV-346, 2018 WL 1900153, at *2 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 19, 2018) (“Because the Court is able to distinguish which exhibits, affidavits, statements, and commentary may properly be considered when 2 deciding whether summary judgment is appropriate, the Court declines to strike these statements from the Plaintiff’s Memorandum.”). The Motions often interrelate to each other; all the Motions relate to evidence or argument submitted in support or opposition to Summary Judgment. The Court has reviewed all the parties’ submissions. Therefore, the Court will grant all the motions to supplement the evidence or file sur-replies and will evaluate any objections to submissions during the course of the Court’s review of the Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court GRANTS the Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Designation of Evidence [ECF No. 53]; the Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement its Appendix [ECF No. 61]; the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply [ECF No. 62]; and the Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply to the Defendant’s Reply in Support of the Defendant’s Motion to Strike the Plaintiff’s Evidence [ECF No. 70]. The Court also DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Plaintiff’s first Motion to Strike Exhibits and Purported Undisputed Facts [ECF No. 47]; the Defendant’s Motion to Strike Certain Portions of Plaintiff’s Designation of Evidence [ECF No. 54]; the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant’s Reply in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 59]; the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Defendant’s Replies (Doc 63 and Doc 64) to its Motions to Supplement Evidence and Strike the Plaintiff’s Evidence [ECF No. 68]. SO ORDERED on March 31, 2021. s/ Theresa L. Springmann THERESA L. SPRINGMANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.