Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_14-cv-01027/USCOURTS-almd-3_14-cv-01027-0/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, EASTERN DIVISION 

JONATHAN PITTS, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

 v. ) 3:14cv1027-MHT

) (WO) 

THE CITY OF TUSKEGEE,

et al., 

)

) 

)

 Defendants. )

ORDER 

 It is ORDERED as follows: 

 (1) The plaintiff’s motion to strike (doc. no. 26) 

is denied. 

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

objecting to the admissibility of evidence, the 

defendants are allowed until October 16, 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 

Case 3:14-cv-01027-MHT-CSC Document 31 Filed 10/09/15 Page 1 of 2
F. Supp. 2d 1321, 1328 (M.D. Ala. 2002); Anderson v. 

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 9th day of October, 2015. 

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:14-cv-01027-MHT-CSC Document 31 Filed 10/09/15 Page 2 of 2