Free Motion to Strike - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6

Russell A. Kolsrud, #004578 Brad M. Thies, #021354 N ORLING, K OLSRUD, S IFFERMAN & D AVIS, P.L.C. 16427 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 210 Scottsdale, Arizona 85254 (480) 505-0015 Attorneys for Defendant ValueOptions, Inc. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 Shannon Michael Clark, 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 ValueOptions, Inc., 12 Defendant. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ValueOptions, Inc. (?ValueOptions") submits its Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Newly Discovered Evidence Opposing Summary Judgment. [Dkt. 211]. Similar to ValueOptions Objections to Plaintiff's Controverting Statement of Facts and, for that matter, all other evidence offered by Plaintiff in opposition to summary judgment, Plaintiff's newly discovered evidence is not admissible under the Rules of Evidence because it: (1) is not properly authenticated, (2) contains inadmissible hearsay, (3) contains conclusory statements not supported by evidence, (4) advances opinions that are reserved for experts, (5) is irrelevant in light of applicable law, and (6) attempts to offer evidence after discovery cutoff and also well after the time for Plaintiff to file his response to ValueOptions' Motion for Summary Judgment. Specific authority supporting these objections is set forth in detail in ValueOptions' Objections to Plaintiff's Controverting Statement of Facts previously filed and not yet ruled on by this Court. [Dkt. 162]. Since Plaintiff, even as a pro se litigant, must still comply with substantive Rules of Evidence and for the same reasons set forth in ValueOptions' Objections to Plaintiff's Controverting Statement of Facts, ValueOptions objects to Plaintiff's newly discovered MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE OPPOSING SUMMARY JUDGMENT Case No. CIV 03-1344-PHX-EHC (MS)

Case 2:03-cv-01344-EHC-HCE

Document 214

Filed 03/07/2006

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6

evidence and requests this Court disregard the evidence as it relates to summary judgment and enter an order striking it from the record. DATED this 7th day of March, 2006. NORLING, KOLSRUD, SIFFERMAN & DAVIS, P.L.C.

By: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 /s/ Brad M. Thies Shannon M. Clark #113372 ASPC-Tucson-Santa Rita P.O. Box 24406 Tucson, Arizona 85734-4406 Plaintiff pro per The Honorable Earl H. Carroll U.S. District Court 401 West Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85003 Copy of the foregoing mailed this 7th day of March, 2006, to: Original of the foregoing e-filed with the Clerk this 7 th day of March, 2006 and Copy delivered this 8th day of March, 2006, to:

/s/ Brad M. Thies Russell A. Kolsrud Brad M. Thies Attorneys for Defendant ValueOptions, Inc.

Case 2:03-cv-01344-EHC-HCE

Document 214

Filed 03/07/2006

Page 2 of 2