Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_03-cv-00909/USCOURTS-almd-2_03-cv-00909-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination

---

1Plaintiff’s Response focuses exclusively on Defendant’s motion to strike her unsigned

affidavit (Mot., ¶4 ) and fails altogether to address the objections cited in ¶¶ 1, 2, 3, and 5 of

Defendant’s motion.

2Defendants note properly these cautionary instructions at Section 2 of the Uniform

Scheduling Order (Doc. 14): “In all briefs filed by any party relating to the motion, the

discussion of the evidence in the brief must be accompanied by a specific reference, by page

and line, to where the evidence can be found in a supporting deposition or document. Failure

to make such specific reference will result in the evidence not being considered by the court.”

 While Plaintiff’s brief does include some evidentiary references which are compliant with

this section and some which are not, neither the incidence of non-compliance nor the

evidence necessarily considered in evaluating the summary judgment motion justifies the

(continued...)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

LINDA PETTWAY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) 2:03-CV-00909-B

)

ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ) [WO]

PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER ON MOTION

Having duly considered each of the five objections asserted in Defendants’ Motion to Strike

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 53, August 27, 2004) as

well as Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 60, September 7, 2004)1, it is, for good cause grounded in

applicable rules of evidence, ORDERED as follows:

1. The Motion to Strike the entire summary judgment Response because it is noncompliant with the scheduling order’s requirement of specific references to

evidentiary citations2 is DENIED.

Case 2:03-cv-00909-DRB Document 81 Filed 07/15/05 Page 1 of 3
2

(...continued)

requested remedy. 

3

In lieu of striking an entire affidavit, the court may strike only inadmissible parts and

consider the remainder. Lee v. National Life Assurance Co., 632 F. 2d 524, 529 (5th Cir.

1980). While the general rule prohibits the consideration of inadmissible hearsay on a

motion for summary judgment, Macuba v. Deboer, 193 F. 3d 1316, 1322 (11th Cir. 1999),

it may be considered if it would be admissible at trial as non-hearsay or pursuant to an

exception to the hearsay rule. McMillian v. Johnson, 88 F. 3d 1573, 1584 (11th Cir. 1996).

 Plaintiff’s testimony about the substance of communications to her from Melody Tompkins

and Dr. Awtrey is hearsay which cannot be reduced to admissible evidence at trial.

2

2. The Motion to Strike from Plaintiff’s summary judgment Response any reference to

Danita Rose as “Defendant Rose” is GRANTED as she is not a defendant.

3. The Motion to Strike from Plaintiff’s summary judgment Response any references

to the deposition of Denita Rose is GRANTED as the deposition is not part of the

record on summary judgment. 

4. The Motion to Strike from Plaintiff’s summary judgment Response the unsigned

“Affidavit of Linda Pettway” marked “Ex. A” is DENIED as mooted by Plaintiff’s

submission as well of an affidavit by Linda Pettway which is signed and otherwise

compliant with Fed.R.Civ.P.Rule 56(e).

5. The Motion to Strike from Plaintiff’s summary judgment Response “all inadmissible

hearsay contained in the [signed] Affidavit” of Linda Pettway – specified as

“Plaintiff’s alleged conversations with Melody Tompkins and Dr. Jill Awrey” – is

GRANTED.3

Case 2:03-cv-00909-DRB Document 81 Filed 07/15/05 Page 2 of 3
3

DONE this 15th day of July, 2005.

/s/ Delores R. Boyd

DELORES R. BOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-00909-DRB Document 81 Filed 07/15/05 Page 3 of 3