Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_12-cv-01049/USCOURTS-almd-1_12-cv-01049-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

KATHRYN BIELSKI, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 1:12cv1049-MHT

) (WO)

ALFRED SALIBA CORPORATION, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Defendant Alfred Saliba Corporation has filed a motion

to strike portions of an affidavit which plaintiff Kathryn

Bielski offered in 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

Case 1:12-cv-01049-MHT-SRW Document 81 Filed 10/15/13 Page 1 of 2
6, 2009). Nevertheless, in resolving the defendant’s

summary-judgment motion, the court has implicitly

considered the motion to strike as, instead, an objection

to the evidence offered by plaintiff. 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 Alfred

Saliba Corporation’s motion to strike (Doc. No. 50) is

denied.

DONE, this the 15th day of October.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01049-MHT-SRW Document 81 Filed 10/15/13 Page 2 of 2