Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-01034/USCOURTS-almd-2_07-cv-01034-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

KENDRICK L. DORTCH, and RICHARD )

THOMAS, as owner of the ROSE SUPPER )

CLUB, )

)

PLAINTIFFS, )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 2:07-cv-1034-MEF

) (LEAD CASE)

THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY and )

LT. G.C. CREMEENS, )

) (WO-Do Not Publish)

DEFENDANTS. )

TIMOTHY CRENSHAW, and KENT )

CRENSHAW, as owner of the DIAMONDS )

CLUB, )

)

PLAINTIFFS, )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 2:07-cv-1035-MEF

) (MEMBER CASE)

THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY and )

LT. G.C. CREMEENS, )

)

DEFENDANTS. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This cause is before the Court on the Defendant G.C. Cremeens’ Motion to Strike

Affidavit Testimony (Doc. # 28) which was filed on September 11, 2008 in the member case,

2:07cv1035. This motion to strike directed to an affidavitsubmitted in opposition to pending

motions for summary judgment.

Case 2:07-cv-01034-MEF-WC Document 65 Filed 01/22/10 Page 1 of 2
Given that the challenged affidavit and declarations were submitted either in support

of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, they must comply with the

requirements of Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 56(e) makes it

plain that affidavits or declarations submitted in support of or opposition to a motion for

summary judgment

shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts

as would be admissible in evidence, and shall affirmatively show

that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated

therein.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (emphasis added). The requirements of Rule 56 make it plain that

affidavits which set forth conclusory arguments rather than statements of fact based on

personal knowledge are improper. See, e.g., Thomas v. Ala. Council on Human Relations,

Inc., 248 F. Supp. 2d 1105, 1112 (M.D. Ala. 2003); Story v. Sunshine Foliage World, Inc.,

120 F. Supp. 2d 1027, 1030 (M.D. Fla. 2000). Accord, Leigh v. Warner Bros., Inc., 212 F.3d

1210, 1217 (11th Cir. 2000). Sworn statements which fail to meet the standards set forth in

Rule 56(e) may be subject to a motion to strike. See, e.g., Thomas, 248 F. Supp. 2d at 1112;

Givhan v. Electronic Eng’rs, Inc., 4 F. Supp. 2d 1331, 1334 (M.D. Ala. 1998). However, the

Court need not strike the entire affidavit, rather it may strike or disregard the improper

portions and consider the remainder of the testimony or statement. Id. at p. 1334 n.2. This

Court will exercise its discretion to disregard any improper portions of the challenged

affidavit or declarations. Accordingly, the aforementioned motion is DENIED AS MOOT.

DONE this the 22 day of January, 2010.

nd

/s/ Mark E. Fuller

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 2:07-cv-01034-MEF-WC Document 65 Filed 01/22/10 Page 2 of 2