Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jones v. Chapman

United States District Court, D. Maryland

April 28, 2017

TAWANDA JONES, et al. Plaintiffs,
v.
NICHOLAS DAVID CHAPMAN, et al, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM

          Ellen Lipton Hollander United States District Judge.

         On December 30, 2016, Baltimore City Police Officers Nicholas David Chapman; Jorge Omar Bernardez-Ruiz; Matthew Rea Cioffi; Eric Maurice Hinton; Alex Ryan Hashagen; Danielle Angela Lewis; Derrick Dewayne Beasley; and Latreese Nicole Lee (collectively, "BPD Officers") filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF 97), supported by a memorandum of law (ECF 97-3) (collectively, "Motion"). Plaintiffs oppose the Motion (ECF 106), supported by a memorandum of law (ECF 106-1) (collectively "Opposition"). The BPD Officers have replied. ECF 117.

         In connection with the Motion, the BPD Officers also filed a motion to strike the Opposition. ECF 113 ("Motion to Strike"). They challenge the Opposition itself, as well as certain exhibits submitted with it.[1] Plaintiffs oppose the Motion to Strike (ECF 121), supported by a memorandum of law. ECF 121-1. The BPD Officers have replied. ECF 128.

         This Memorandum addresses only the Motion to Strike. No hearing is necessary to resolve the Motion to Strike. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall grant the Motion to Strike in part and deny it in part.

         I. The Contentions

         In the Motion to Strike, the BPD Officers challenge the Opposition because it exceeded by six pages the 35 page limit set forth in Local Rule 105(3). ECF 113 at 3. The BPD Officers also challenge a host of exhibits submitted by plaintiffs in support of their Opposition to the Motion (ECF 97). In general, the challenges to the exhibits pertain to relevance, prejudice, and authentication.

         In particular, the BPD Officers challenge various statements ("Officer Statements") provided by police officers to the Internal Affairs Division ("IAD") of the Baltimore City Police Department ("BPD"). All but two were made by defendants. In the Officer Statements, the officers provided accounts of the incident involving Mr. West.

         The BPD Officers complain that the statements are unsworn and unauthenticated. These statements are as follows (ECF 113 at 2-3):

1. Plaintiffs' Exhibit D, Nicholas Chapman Statement (ECF 106-8, filed separately in paper format)
2. Plaintiffs' Exhibit E, Derrick Beasley Statement (ECF 106-9)
3. Plaintiffs' Exhibit F, Eric Hinton Statement (ECF 106-10)
4. Plaintiffs' Exhibit G, Alex Hashagen Statement (ECF 106-11)
5. Plaintiffs' Exhibit H, Latrice Lee Statement (ECF 106-12)
6. Plaintiffs' Exhibit I, Mathew Cioffi Statement (ECF ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.