SMITH v. CITY OF TUPELO, 1:10CV217-B-S. (2012)
Court: District Court, N.D. Mississippi
Number: infdco20120309a61
Visitors: 4
Filed: Mar. 08, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 08, 2012
Summary: ORDER NEAL B. BIGGERS, Jr., District Judge. Presently before the court is the plaintiff's motion to strike Exhibits A and C from defendant's rebuttal in support of its motion for summary judgment. Upon due consideration, the court finds as follows: The plaintiff has withdrawn her objection to defendant's Exhibit A, and the motion to strike said exhibit is hereby DENIED as moot. Defendant's Exhibit C, the affidavit of Anthony Hill, will be considered as rebuttal evidence in response to the
Summary: ORDER NEAL B. BIGGERS, Jr., District Judge. Presently before the court is the plaintiff's motion to strike Exhibits A and C from defendant's rebuttal in support of its motion for summary judgment. Upon due consideration, the court finds as follows: The plaintiff has withdrawn her objection to defendant's Exhibit A, and the motion to strike said exhibit is hereby DENIED as moot. Defendant's Exhibit C, the affidavit of Anthony Hill, will be considered as rebuttal evidence in response to the ..
More
ORDER
NEAL B. BIGGERS, Jr., District Judge.
Presently before the court is the plaintiff's motion to strike Exhibits A and C from defendant's rebuttal in support of its motion for summary judgment. Upon due consideration, the court finds as follows:
The plaintiff has withdrawn her objection to defendant's Exhibit A, and the motion to strike said exhibit is hereby DENIED as moot.
Defendant's Exhibit C, the affidavit of Anthony Hill, will be considered as rebuttal evidence in response to the plaintiff's argument that the Tupelo Police Department has no female members on its SWAT team. The court finds that the prejudice potentially suffered by the defendant by the exclusion of this testimony outweighs the prejudice potentially suffered by the plaintiff by its admission. See Hamburger v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 361 F.3d 875, 883 (5th Cir. 2004). The plaintiff's motion to strike Exhibit C is therefore DENIED.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.
Source: Leagle
