Bonadies v. Deaconess Hospital

Full title: SHARON BONADIES, Plaintiff, v. DEACONESS HOSPITAL, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

Date published: Jul 19, 2006

Case No. 1:04-cv-282 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 19, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 1:04-cv-282.

July 19, 2006

ORDER

TIMOTHY BLACK, Magistrate Judge

This civil action is before the Court on a motion by defendant Deaconess Hospital (doc. 50) to strike the documents submitted by plaintiff Sharon Bonadies as exhibits to her memorandum in opposition (doc. 46) to defendant's motion for summary judgment (doc. 40).

On April 26, 2004, plaintiff filed her initial complaint composed of six counts of allegedly unlawful actions taken against her by defendant (doc. 1). On April 6, 2005, both parties filed for a joint motion to vacate scheduling order and set new trial date (doc. 18), which motion the Court granted (doc. 19).

Ultimately, on December 1, 2005, defendant filed a motion for summary judgement (doc. 40), whereupon plaintiff filed her memorandum in opposition (doc. 46), attaching thereto exhibits "A" through "I" as evidence of disputed material facts that would prevent the granting of the motion for summary judgment.

This Court now addresses defendant's current motion to strike exhibits "A" through "I" of plaintiff's memorandum in opposition.

Defendant claims that plaintiff's exhibits "A" through "I" are unauthenticated documents, and, thus, may not be considered by the Court in considering the propriety of granting defendant's motion for summary judgment. See Hal Roach Studios v. Feiner, 896 F.2d 1524, 1550 (9^th Cir. 1989) ("It is well established that unauthenticated documents cannot be considered on a motion for summary judgment. . . . To be considered by the court `documents must be authenticated by and attached to an affidavit that meets the requirements of [Rule] 56(e), and the affiant must be a person through whom the exhibits could be admitted into evidence."' Id. (quoting Canada v. Blain's Helicopters, Inc., 831 F.2d 920, 925 (9^th Cir. 1987)).

The decision to grant or deny a motion to strike is a matter within the discretion of the District Court. See Collazos-Cruz v. United States, 1997 WL 377037, at *2 (6^th Cir. July 3, 1997) (citing Whitted v. Gen. Motors Corp., 58 F.3d 1200, 1203 (7^th Cir. 1995)). Here, given that courts prefer to consider cases on the merits, see, e.g., Berthelsen v. Kane, 907 F.2d 617, 620 (6^th Cir. 1990), this Court is inclined to grant plaintiff's motion for limited additional discovery to authenticate her documents.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiff is granted leave to propound within 30 days a set of Requests for Admissions to defendant seeking to authenticate the challenged exhibits; and the motion to strike (doc. 50) remains under consideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.