Order Denying Motion to Strike — Norris v. Stanley (W.D. Mich.)

Summary

Order Denying Motion to Strike in Norris v. Stanley, No. 1:21-cv-756, in the United States District Court, Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, dated October 4, 2021 and signed by Hon. Paul L. Maloney as ECF No. 34. Plaintiff Jeanna Norris moves (ECF No. 22) to strike the Defendants' rebuttal declaration of Dr. Zervos (ECF No. 17) on three grounds, and the Court finds that all three arguments lack merit. The order states that Plaintiff's counsel cross-examined Dr. Zervos at the hearing and that the Court will accept a reply-declaration by Dr. Noorchashm (ECF No. 22-3). It orders the motion to strike denied and the alternative request granted.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 
SOUTHERN DIVISION 
 
JEANNA NORRIS, 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
No. 1:21-cv-756 
-v- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
Hon. Paul L. Maloney 
SAMUEL L. STANLEY, JR., ET AL.,  
 
) 
 
 
 
Defendants.  
 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE 
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “motion for alternative forms of relief in 
light of the unauthorized late filing of a second Dr. Zervos declaration” (ECF No. 22). 
Plaintiff moves to strike Defendants’ rebuttal declaration of Dr. Zervos (hereinafter the 
“Zervos declaration”) (see ECF No. 17). Plaintiff filed the present motion on September 21, 
2021, which was the day before the Court held a motion hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for 
preliminary injunction. She moved to strike on three grounds: (1) that the filing of the Zervos 
declaration was improper under the Federal Rules and the Western District of Michigan’s 
Local Rules of Civil Procedure (ECF No. 22-1 at PageID.745); (2) that the Zervos declaration 
was “unauthorized” because Plaintiff did not agree to the filing (ECF No. 22-1 at 
PageID.746); and (3) that the Zervos declaration “contained no information that could not 
have been included in Dr. Zervos’s initial Declaration. . . .” (ECF No. 22-1 at PageID.746). 
The Court finds that all three arguments lack merit. First, there is nothing in the 
Federal Rules or the Local Rules of Civil Procedure that prohibit a party from filing a rebuttal 
declaration. Second, there was no need for Plaintiff to consent to the filing of the Zervos 
Case 1:21-cv-00756-PLM-SJB   ECF No. 34,  PageID.784   Filed 10/04/21   Page 1 of 2

2 
 
declaration because the declaration was not a sur-reply, it was a rebuttal declaration. And 
third, there is nothing in the Federal Rules or Local Rules of Civil Procedure that prohibit a 
party from filing a second declaration when that party could have included the information 
in the second declaration in the first. 
Further, at the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (again, which 
took place after Plaintiff filed this motion to strike and reviewed the Zervos declaration), 
Plaintiff’s counsel cross-examined Dr. Zervos. Plaintiff also submitted a reply-declaration by 
Dr. Noorchashm (ECF No. 22-3), to which Defendants did not object and the Court will 
accept as part of the record. If Plaintiff faced any prejudice from the Zervos declaration, it 
has been remedied. 
Accordingly, 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to strike (ECF No. 22) is 
DENIED. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s alternative request in her motion to 
strike—that the Court accept Dr. Noorchashm’s reply-declaration—is GRANTED. 
Date:   October 4, 2021   
 
 
 
 
/s/ Paul L. Maloney                
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Paul L. Maloney 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
United States District Judge 
 
 
 
Case 1:21-cv-00756-PLM-SJB   ECF No. 34,  PageID.785   Filed 10/04/21   Page 2 of 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.miwd.102518.34.0.pdf

Size

40,495 bytes

SHA-256

edf619073fe494e0d7d9a517421ef684885d725c660d406479cf089c2c349ca7

Our copy

gov.uscourts.miwd.102518.34.0.pdf

Original

archive.org