Free Order on Motion to Strike - District Court of Arizona - Arizona


File Size: 42.7 kB
Pages: 2
Date: August 30, 2006
File Format: PDF
State: Arizona
Category: District Court of Arizona
Author: unknown
Word Count: 380 Words, 2,433 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/azd/23980/300.pdf

Download Order on Motion to Strike - District Court of Arizona ( 42.7 kB)


Preview Order on Motion to Strike - District Court of Arizona
AUG-BB-U6 UB:3TAl»l FROM-LISDS SDDIST FLFIVE +ElB55T6U32 T-Bil P.lJl6/DIE F-l2U
I 1
2
3
4
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9 STUART J. REILLY, CASE NO. CIV. D2-2218-PHX—BTM
10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
11 vs_ STRIKE THE SHARDLOW
DECLARATION (Doc. # 285);
12 DENYING DEFENDANT$’ MOTION
TO STRIKE PLAINT|FF’S REPLY
13 {Poo. # 287); and DENYING
CHARLES M. BREWER, Ltd. Profit LAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE
14 Sharing Plan and Trust, a retirement PORTIONS OF DEFENDANTS’
gan; CHARLES M. BREWER, Ltd. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
15 estated Pension Plan, a retirement (Doc. # 298)
16 plan; and CHARLES M. BREWER,
17 Defendants.
The Court has considered the motion to strike portions of Thomas Shardlow’s
18 declaration in rebuttal. The motion is granted. The entire declaration, with the exception of
19 paragraphs 23-28, exceeds the scope ofthe rebuttal permitted by the Court. Therefore
20 paragraphs 1-22 will be struck. The Court finds no prejudice to Defendants in allowing
21 paragraphs 29-32 to remain. Therefore only paragraphs 1-22 are struck. Nevertheless, the
22 Court, having reviewed the declaration in its entirety, finds that it would not effect or alter its
23 findings of fact and conclusions of law issued herewith.
24 Because the Court, based on its independent review ofthe record, has found in favor
25 of the Defendants, their motion to strike the portions of Plaintiffs reply to Defendants
26
fl
27 N
28 H
1 crv uz-221a
Case 2.02-cv-02218—BTM—LSP Document 300 Filed 08/31/2006 Pagef of2

AUG-30-UG UB:3i’AM FROM-USDS SODIST FLFIVE +5195575uag T-an p_gi;·,/gig pm
1 proposed tindings of fact and the Plaintiffs response, which moves to strike portions of
2 Defendants proposed findings of fact, are denied as moot.
3 IT IS $0 ORDERED.
4 I.
5 Daiédi é...c,c 1 .{.'4£’Z:}.t¤-g_:l-·; JQ
5 HONORABLE BARRY TED MOSKOWIT
7 United States District Judge
8 cc: All counsel of record
9
10
11 .
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 _
27
28
2 cw 02-221s
Case 02—cv—02218—BTI\/I—LSP Document 300 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 2 of 2

Case 2:02-cv-02218-BTM-LSP

Document 300

Filed 08/31/2006

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:02-cv-02218-BTM-LSP

Document 300

Filed 08/31/2006

Page 2 of 2