This form is used for summary judgment that is accompanied by one or more affidavits executed by the moving party or by others having knowledge of the facts. Objections to pleadings, such as affidavits, that are insufficient in substance or in form may be raised by a motion to strike pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule has been adopted by most states in one form or another.
Title: An Overview of Wisconsin's Motion of Defendant to Strike Affidavit in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion to Strike Introduction: In Wisconsin civil litigation, motions play a crucial role in presenting legal arguments and supporting evidence during court proceedings. This article delves into the intricacies of the Motion of Defendant to Strike Affidavit in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion to Strike. We will explore the purpose, procedure, and possible variations of this motion in Wisconsin courts. 1. Understanding the Motion to Strike: A Motion to Strike is a request made by the defendant seeking the court's action to exclude specific evidence, pleadings, or affidavits from consideration in the case. In the context of a Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, the defendant perceives flaws or inaccuracies in the affidavit supporting the motion and moves the court to disregard it in determining the outcome. 2. Basis for Motion to Strike Affidavit: The Defendant usually makes a Motion to Strike an Affidavit in Support of the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on various grounds. Some common justifications could include: a) Affidavit Irrelevance: The defendant argues that the information provided in the affidavit is immaterial or unrelated to the claims or defenses at issue. b) Incompetent Affine: The defendant contends that the affine lacks the necessary qualifications, personal knowledge, or expertise to offer reliable testimony. c) Hearsay or Unauthenticated Evidence: The defendant points out that the affidavit contains statements that rely on hearsay or lack proper authentication, rendering them inadmissible in court. d) Deficient Content or Format: The defendant asserts that the affidavit fails to meet the legal requirements for content, format, or the inclusion of required elements. 3. Procedure for Filing a Motion to Strike Affidavit: To initiate a Motion to Strike, a defendant must follow established procedures in Wisconsin. These generally involve: a) Drafting the Motion: The defendant's attorney prepares a written motion detailing the reasons and legal basis for striking the affidavit, often citing relevant statutes, rules, or case law to support their arguments. b) Notice of Motion: The defendant files a separate document known as the Notice of Motion to Strike, providing notice to the opposing party and the court about the intent to seek the striking of the affidavit. c) Serving the Opposing Party: Copies of both the Motion to Strike and the Notice of Motion must be served upon the opposing party within the required time frame, typically following Wisconsin's civil procedure rules. 4. Variations of the Motion to Strike: While the primary purpose of the Motion to Strike Affidavit is to challenge the evidentiary support for a Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, there might be specific instances where the motion takes on a different nature. Such variations include: a) Motion to Strike Portion of Affidavit: The defendant objects to only certain parts of the affidavit, seeking their exclusion while allowing other portions to remain admissible. b) Motion to Strike Multiple Affidavits: In cases where multiple affidavits support the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, the defendant might file a motion seeking to strike several or all affidavits. Conclusion: Wisconsin's Motion of Defendant to Strike Affidavit in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion to Strike serves as a powerful tool for defendants to challenge the admissibility of affidavits in summary judgment proceedings. By understanding the procedural requirements, justifications, and possible variations, defendants can mount effective legal arguments aimed at excluding or minimizing the impact of opponent's evidence in court.
