3precisely the situation here. The controversy that is before the Court is whether the Plaintiffshave proof of service of process on the Hawaii Attorney General. Because the Exhibits have “nopossible relation” to this controversy, they should be stricken from the record.
In addition, where an affidavit does not measure up to the standards of Rule 56(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is subject to a timely motion to strike.
See Auto Drive- Away Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n
, 360 F.2d 446, 448-49 (5th Cir. 1966) (citing formerRule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). Specifically, an affidavit must: (1) be madeon personal knowledge; (2) set out facts that would be admissible in evidence; and (3) show thatthe affiant is competent to testify on the matters stated.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4). Aside fromthe generic and self-serving statements by the affiants that they are competent to testify and thematters asserted are based on personal knowledge, the content of the affidavits is whollyinadmissible at trial. Indeed, the statements made in the affidavits constitute hearsay, and thereare no exceptions to the hearsay rule that would allow the introduction into evidence of theseirrelevant and self-serving affidavits in the absence of the individuals who prepared them beingsubjected to cross-examination regarding their accuracy, reliability, and admissibility.
Fed.R. Evid. 801(c), 802. Further, there is no reliable and competent evidence upon which the Courtcould determine that the affiants are qualified as experts under
. Finally, the statementswould not assist the trier of fact as to the matters contained therein.These affidavits amount to nothing more than an attempt by the Plaintiffs to injectinadmissible evidence into this case. This Court simply requested that the Plaintiffs provideproof of service on the Hawaii Attorney General by filing the “Additional proof of service percourt request[.]” As such, the matters asserted in Exhibits Five and Six are irrelevant andimpertinent to the subject of the Court’s request and should be stricken from the record. In fact,
Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA Document 72 Filed 11/21/12 Page 3 of 6