Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_14-cv-00592/USCOURTS-almd-1_14-cv-00592-0/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, SOUTHERN DIVISION 

IVAN KEITH GRAY, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

 v. ) 1:14cv592-MHT

) (WO) 

CITY OF DOTHAN, )

) 

 Defendant. )

ORDER 

 It is ORDERED as follows: 

 (1) The defendant’s motion to strike (doc. no. 50) 

is denied. 

 (2) However, to the extent the defendant is merely 

objecting to the admissibility of evidence, the 

plaintiff is allowed until June 5, 2015, to respond. 

 In resolving the pending summary-judgment motion, 

the court has implicitly considered the motion to 

strike as a notice of objections to the testimony 

described. See Norman v. Southern Guar. Ins. Co., 191 

F. Supp. 2d 1321, 1328 (M.D. Ala. 2002); Anderson v. 

Case 1:14-cv-00592-MHT-SRW Document 52 Filed 05/26/15 Page 1 of 2
Radisson Hotel Corp., 834 F. Supp. 1364, 1368 n. 1 

(S.D. Ga. 1993). The court is capable of sifting 

evidence, as required by the summary-judgment standard, 

without resort to an exclusionary process, and the 

court will not allow the summary-judgment stage to 

degenerate into a battle of motions to strike. Rather, 

as is apparent from this order, the court will 

entertain briefs on the admissibility of evidence. 

 DONE, this the 26th day of May, 2015. 

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:14-cv-00592-MHT-SRW Document 52 Filed 05/26/15 Page 2 of 2