Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_04-cv-01050/USCOURTS-almd-2_04-cv-01050-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tisha Dickson
Plaintiff
Labcorp
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

TISHA DICKSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:04cv1050-T

) (WO)

LABCORP, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that defendant Labcorp’s motion to

strike (Doc. No. 17) is denied under the conditions set

forth below.

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 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

Case 2:04-cv-01050-MHT-VPM Document 33 Filed 10/18/05 Page 1 of 2
exclusionary process, and the court will not allow the

summary-judgment stage to degenerate into a battle of

motions to strike.

DONE, this the 18th day of October, 2005.

_____________________________ /s/ Myron H. Thompson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-01050-MHT-VPM Document 33 Filed 10/18/05 Page 2 of 2