Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-01094/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-01094-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

BRIAN KEITH FORD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:12cv1094-MHT

) (WO)

CITY OF GOODWATER, JONATHAN )

PITTS, and GERALD WHETSTONE,)

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Defendant Jonathan Pitts has filed a motion to strike

several affidavits which plaintiff Brian Keith Ford

offered in response to Pitts’s 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

Case 2:12-cv-01094-MHT-WC Document 38 Filed 11/21/13 Page 1 of 2
pleading. Norman v. Southern Guar. Ins. Co., 191 F. Supp.

2d 1321, 1327-28 (M.D. Ala. 2002) (Thompson, J).

Nevertheless, in resolving Pitts’s summary-judgment

motion, the court will implicitly consider the motion to

strike as, instead, an objection to the evidence offered

by Ford. 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 summaryjudgment process, without resort to an exclusionary

process.

***

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendant Jonathan

Pitts’s motion to strike (Doc. No. 29) is denied.

DONE, this the 21st day of November.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:12-cv-01094-MHT-WC Document 38 Filed 11/21/13 Page 2 of 2