Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00105/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00105-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 05:8101 Workmen's Compensation Benefits

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

DANIELLE SMITH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:05cv105-MHT

) (WO)

CPI, CORPORATION, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that defendant CPI, Corporation’s

motion to strike (Doc. No. 47) is denied under the

conditions set forth below.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which

delineates the general use of a motion to strike,

provides that, “Upon motion made by a party ... the court

may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient

defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or

scandalous matter.” (emphasis added). The terms of the

rule make clear that “[o]nly material included in a

Case 2:05-cv-00105-MHT-DRB Document 56 Filed 02/22/06 Page 1 of 3
2

‘pleading’ may be subject of a motion to strike. ...

Motions, briefs or memoranda, objections, or affidavits

may not be attacked by the motion to strike.” 2 James

Wm. Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 12.37[2]

(3d ed. 1999). 

Therefore, as an initial matter, the motion to strike

must be denied as to all non-pleadings, and, in this

case, that would be all documents at issue. See Lowery

v. Hoffman, 188 F.R.D. 651 (M.D. Ala. 1999);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) (a “pleading” is “a complaint and an

answer; a reply to a counterclaim denominated as such; an

answer to a cross-claim, if the answer contains a

cross-claim; a third-party complaint, if a person who was

not an original party is summoned under the provisions of

Rule 14; and a third-party answer, if a third-party

complaint is served.”).

Nevertheless, in resolving the pending

summary-judgment motion, the court will implicitly

consider the motion to strike as, instead, notice of

Case 2:05-cv-00105-MHT-DRB Document 56 Filed 02/22/06 Page 2 of 3
objections to the testimony described. Norman v.

Southern Guar. Ins. Co., 191 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.

DONE, this the 22nd day of February, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00105-MHT-DRB Document 56 Filed 02/22/06 Page 3 of 3