Azzarmi v. 55 Fulton Market
- George Daniels
- 1:20-cv-06835
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Azzarmi v. 55 Fulton Market, Judge Moses denied requests to strike photographs, exclude them at trial, or file another brief.
AASIR AZZARMI and the defendants in the pending summary-judgment proceedings.
What happened
In AASIR AZZARMI v. 55 FULTON MARKET, Azzarmi asked the court to strike photographs that defendants submitted with their reply supporting summary judgment, exclude the photographs at trial, or allow another brief responding to defendants’ reply.
The court agreed that the photographs had not been properly authenticated and were not admissible on the current record. But it said a separate motion to strike was unnecessary because the court could simply disregard improper evidence. It also said the record did not establish that the photographs were clearly inadmissible for every possible purpose, and that Azzarmi had not shown a need for another brief.
Judge Barbara Moses denied all three requests: the request to strike the photographs from defendants’ summary-judgment reply, the request to exclude them at trial, and the request to file a further brief. The ruling did not decide the parties’ summary-judgment motions.
The detailed version
- Azzarmi v. 55 Fulton Market · No. 1:20-cv-06835
- George Daniels
- Mar. 3, 2023
Background
Plaintiff AASIR AZZARMI moved to strike photographs that defendants submitted as exhibits to their reply brief supporting their motion for summary judgment. Azzarmi also asked the court to exclude the photographs at trial or authorize a sur-reply, meaning an additional brief responding to defendants’ reply.
Photographs in the Summary-Judgment Record
The court agreed that the photographs had not been properly authenticated and therefore were not admissible on the present record. It explained, however, that a separate motion to strike improper evidence in the summary-judgment context was unnecessary because the district court could disregard inadmissible material. The court also noted that it would not consider inadmissible or otherwise improper evidence from either party.
The court therefore DENIED Azzarmi’s request to strike portions of defendants’ summary-judgment reply papers.
Possible Exclusion at Trial
The court DENIED the request for an advance order excluding the photographs at trial. It could not determine from the current record that the photographs were clearly inadmissible for every possible purpose.
Additional Briefing
The court DENIED Azzarmi’s request to file a sur-reply. It noted that Azzarmi had already filed multiple briefs and declarations related to the summary-judgment motions, including the motion to strike, and had not explained what additional information would be provided. The court stated that it would not require or accept further briefing connected to the summary-judgment motions.
Disposition
The order denied each of the three requests. It did not resolve the parties’ underlying summary-judgment motions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.