Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00279/USCOURTS-alsd-1_04-cv-00279-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARION UTER, et al., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Civil Case No.: 1:04-279-BH-C

)

LINDA PEACOCK, et al., )

)

Defendant, )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court onseveralmotions regarding depositions and affidavits the parties

seek to strike or supplement in support of their positions on the summary judgment issues. First, both

parties have filed Motions (Docs. 152 & 154) to Strike. Peacock alleges (Doc. 152) that

Plaintiff/CounterclaimDefendant Uter’s affidavit of June 23, 2005 should be stricken because it is a fraud

on the Court, violatesthe parol evidence rule and violates F.R.E. Rules 701 and 802. Uter submits (Doc.

154) that the affidavit of Chad Lipscomb, filed in conjunction with Peacock’s Reply (Doc. 151), should

be stricken as untimely. The Court finds that the parties’ Motions (Doc. 152 & 154) to Strike are due

to be DENIED. 

Though bothpartiesallege different groundsformotioningtoStrike the relevant affidavits, the Court

denies the motions because it did not rely on either affidavit in ruling on the Motion (Doc. 89) for Partial

Summary Judgment. Neither affidavit contained any information that was or would have been influential

to the Court in determining the legal claims at issue. Therefore, the Court finds that striking the affidavits

is unnecessary and the parties’ Motions (Docs. 152 & 154) are hereby DENIED.

Uter also seeks to file excerpts (Doc. 156) fromPeacock’s depositionto rebut the contentions of

Case 1:04-cv-00279-BH-C Document 163 Filed 08/01/05 Page 1 of 2
Chad Lipscomb in his affidavit. Peacock, in turn, has filed a Motion (Doc. 158) to Respond and a

Response (Doc. 159) to Uter’s motion. Because the Court is not basing any ofitslegalfindingsregarding

the issues currently before it for summary judgment on the testimony of Chad Lipscomb, the parties’

motions are hereby DENIED and Peacock’s Response is hereby STRICKEN from the record. 

So ORDERED, this 1st day of August, 2005. 

s/ W. B. Hand

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00279-BH-C Document 163 Filed 08/01/05 Page 2 of 2