Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_11-cv-01077/USCOURTS-almd-3_11-cv-01077-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

KELVIN TODD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:11cv1077-MHT

) (WO) 

DAEWON AMERICA, INC., ) 

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Kelvin Todd brings this lawsuit under the

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, on

behalf of himself and others similarly situated, alleging

that his former employer, defendant Daewon America, Inc.,

violated the FLSA’s overtime-pay provisions. The cause

is before the court on Daewon’s motion to strike evidence

from the record. For reasons that will be discussed, the

motion will be denied.

Daewon asks the court to strike three exhibits that

Todd filed in support of his motion for conditional

certification of a FLSA collective action. The exhibits

pull data from Todd’s time sheets and purport to

Case 3:11-cv-01077-MHT-SRW Document 24 Filed 02/13/13 Page 1 of 4
2

illustrate the systematic shorting of overtime from

Todd’s pay. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure restrict the use

of a motion to strike to the pleadings. A motion to

strike is not an appropriate vehicle for a general attack

on another litigant’s affidavits and evidence. See

Lowery v. Hoffman, 188 F.R.D. 651, 653 (M.D. Ala 1999)

(Thompson, J.); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f); see also 2 James

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

(3d ed.1999) ("Only material included in a ‘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."). Rather, the court will

consider Daewon’s motion to strike as notice of its

objections to Todd’s evidentiary submissions. 

Daewon objects that Todd’s exhibits fail to meet the

requirements for admissibility in the Federal Rules of

Evidence and “were prepared by an unnamed, unidentified

person.” Def. Mot. (Doc. No. 20) at ¶ 4. This court

Case 3:11-cv-01077-MHT-SRW Document 24 Filed 02/13/13 Page 2 of 4
3

does not share its concerns. The three exhibits at issue

use payroll figures from Todd’s time sheets and

demonstrate how the rounding practices resulted in the

under-compensation Todd alleges. The court has no

problem accepting these exhibits as demonstrative

aids--and helpful ones, at that. See Bury v. Marietta

Dodge, 692 F.2d 1335, 1338 (11th Cir. 1982)

(“admissibility of demonstrative evidence is largely

within the discretion of the trial court”). Todd

clarifies in his reply to the motion to strike that his

attorneys prepared the charts. 

Moreover, the technical requirements of the Federal

Rules of Evidence need not be met at this early stage.

“The general rule in this Circuit is that parties’

exhibits may be considered for purposes of pretrial

rulings so long as they can be reduced to admissible form

at trial.” Longcrier v. HL-A Co., Inc., 595 F.Supp. 2d

1218, 1223 (S.D. Ala. 2008) (Steele, J.) (citing Rowell

v. BellSouth Corp., 433 F.3d 794, 800 (11th Cir. 2005)

Case 3:11-cv-01077-MHT-SRW Document 24 Filed 02/13/13 Page 3 of 4
and U.S. Aviation Underwriters, Inc. v. Yellow Freight

System, Inc., 296 F.Supp. 2d 1322, 1327 n.2 (S.D. Ala.

2003) (Steele, J.)). The court finds that the

demonstrative exhibits Todd submits are readily reducible

to admissible form. As such, Daewon’s objections to this

evidence are overruled. 

***

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendant Daewon

America, Inc.’s motion to strike (Doc. No. 20) is denied.

DONE, this the 13th day of February, 2013.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-01077-MHT-SRW Document 24 Filed 02/13/13 Page 4 of 4