Henderson v. Quinn

Parties

Procedural Posture

Civil (summary Judgment Motion) / Motion for Summary Judgment on Evidence; Defendants' Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' Affidavits and Exhibits

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether challenged affidavit passages amount to inadmissible hearsay and must be struck
2. 2 Whether Gilbert affidavit constitutes an expert opinion compliant with Rule 55 and admissible
3. 3 Whether the Bruce Graham statement and un‑affidavited exhibits are properly before the court

Ratio Decidendi

Impugned affidavit passages that contain hearsay without identification of source and the witness' belief must be struck pursuant to Rule 39.04(2)(b) and related principles; paragraphs of the Gilbert affidavit that constitute an unqualified expert opinion were struck for non‑compliance with Rule 55 (without prejudice to proper re‑submission); unsigned/unauthenticated documents (Bruce Graham statement, Exhibits 3 and 4) are not properly before the court and were struck; however plaintiffs may rely on their own discovery transcripts on a summary judgment motion to demonstrate genuine issues for trial where properly used.

Court Disposition

Defendants' motion to strike granted in part and plaintiffs' evidentiary objections to discovery use rejected in part; specified affidavit paragraphs and documents struck, but plaintiffs permitted to rely on discovery transcripts to oppose summary judgment where appropriate

Orders

• Strike the challenged hearsay paragraphs in the identified affidavits for failure to identify source and witness belief (pursuant to Rule 39.04(2)(b))
• Strike the paragraphs of the Affidavit of Edward Crane Gilbert that constitute expert opinion for non‑compliance with Rule 55 (without prejudice to re‑admission of a properly constituted expert report)