Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00924/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00924-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

WILLIE ADAMS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:10cv924-MHT

) (WO) 

THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Defendant City of Montgomery has filed a motion to

strike portions of plaintiff Willie Adams’s response to

the motion for summary judgment. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) applies only to

pleadings: “The court may strike from a pleading an

insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial,

impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Defendant’s motion

to “strike” evidence in a response to a motion for

summary judgement is not a request to strike material

from a pleading. Mann v. Darden, 2009 WL 2019588 (M.D.

Ala. July 6, 2009). Nevertheless, in resolving the

Case 2:10-cv-00924-MHT-TFM Document 71 Filed 04/24/12 Page 1 of 2
defendant’s summary-judgment motion, the court has

implicitly considered the motion to strike as, instead,

an objection to the evidence offered by Adams. See 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.”). The court is capable of sifting through the

evidence, as required by the summary-judgment process,

without resort to an exclusionary process.

***

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendant City of

Montgomery’s motion to strike (Doc. No. 49) is denied.

DONE, this the 24th day of April, 2012.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-00924-MHT-TFM Document 71 Filed 04/24/12 Page 2 of 2