McQUITTY v. RAMIREZ, 3-12-0683. (2014)
Court: District Court, M.D. Tennessee
Number: infdco20140418863
Visitors: 8
Filed: Apr. 17, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 17, 2014
Summary: ORDER TODD J. CAMPBELL, District Judge. Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Strike Affidavit of Michael Napier and Motion to Exclude Testimony of Michael Napier (Docket No. 114). In light of the recent Order of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 125), and for the reasons stated therein, Defendants' Motion to Strike and Exclude is GRANTED. Also pending before the Court is Defendant CF Transportation's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No. 98). Defendant seeks summary judg
Summary: ORDER TODD J. CAMPBELL, District Judge. Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Strike Affidavit of Michael Napier and Motion to Exclude Testimony of Michael Napier (Docket No. 114). In light of the recent Order of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 125), and for the reasons stated therein, Defendants' Motion to Strike and Exclude is GRANTED. Also pending before the Court is Defendant CF Transportation's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No. 98). Defendant seeks summary judgm..
More
ORDER
TODD J. CAMPBELL, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Strike Affidavit of Michael Napier and Motion to Exclude Testimony of Michael Napier (Docket No. 114). In light of the recent Order of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 125), and for the reasons stated therein, Defendants' Motion to Strike and Exclude is GRANTED.
Also pending before the Court is Defendant CF Transportation's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No. 98). Defendant seeks summary judgment on Plaintiffs' recently added claim for punitive damages. Because Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Facts, and Plaintiff's Countervailing Statement of Undisputed1 Facts all rely heavily upon the Affidavit of Michael Napier, Plaintiff shall re-file his Responses, by May 8, 2014, with no references to or reliance upon Mr. Napier's Affidavit or testimony, since that evidence has been stricken.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff's Countervailing Statement of Undisputed Facts does not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Rules of this Court in that Plaintiff asserts undisputed facts, when the rules authorize the non-moving party to file a statement of disputed material facts which would preclude summary judgment. Local Rule 56.01(c).
Source: Leagle
