[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-281652-105":53,"doc-detail-281652-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","almella-starks-umoja-v-federal-express-corporation-order-granting-and-denying-motions-for-summary-judgment","Almella Starks-Umoja v. Federal Express Corporation - Order Granting and Denying Motions for Summary Judgment","","Court order in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee addressing Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and related requests. The Court grants summary judgment, denies the motion to deem Defendant’s statement of undisputed facts as admitted, and denies in part while granting in part Defendant’s motion to strike unauthenticated exhibits. The decision analyzes Plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rules, the late-filed responses, and evidentiary authentication requirements under Rule 56(e) and Rule 703, including reliance on depositions and exhibit marking.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/almella-starks-umoja-v-federal-express-corporation-order-granting-and-denying-motions-for-summary-judgment/281652/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/almella-starks-umoja-v-federal-express-corporation-order-granting-and-denying-motions-for-summary-judgment/281652.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"eBook King","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-27","2026-09-16",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":15},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"What did the court grant regarding the summary judgment motion?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"The Court grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"Why did the court deny the motion to deem undisputed facts as admitted?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"The Court considered Plaintiff’s late-filed responses in the interest of allowing her to present her claims, despite noncompliance with local rules.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"On what grounds did the court address Defendant’s motion to strike exhibits?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"The Court examined whether the exhibits were properly authenticated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e), including whether supporting materials were attached by affidavit or deposition testimony.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},281652,1789567165,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":15,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":125,"read_time":140},962088006270,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_085a072bc5b1113ac321206ff7593b45","IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION  \n\n| ALMELLA STARKS-UMOJA, Plaintiff,\u003Cbr>v .\u003Cbr>FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, Defendant . | ))\u003Cbr>))\u003Cbr>) No . 01-2878 Ml/A)\u003Cbr>))\u003Cbr>) |\n| --- | --- |\n| ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT\u003Cbr>ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DEEM DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AS ADMITTED\u003Cbr>AND\u003Cbr>ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO\u003Cbr>STRIKE UNAUTHENTICATED EXHIBITS |  |\n| Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed April 1, 2003. Plaintiff responded in opposition on May 2, 2003. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment .1 |  |\n\n1 Defendant also filed a Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment on July 25, 2003. In the supplemental motion, Defendant argues that Plaintiff should be judicially estopped from pursuing her disability discrimination claim because she failed to report this case as a potential asset in her personal bankruptcy case . Plaintiff responded in opposition to the supplemental motion on August 25, 2003. Because the Court has determined that it is appropriate to dismiss this case based on the substantive grounds presented in the first motion for summary judgment, the Court does not address the merits of the supplemental motion .  \nI . Motion to Deem Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Facts as Admitted  \nPlaintiff’s initial Response to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, filed May 2, 2003, did not comply with Local Rule 7 .2(d)(3) . Plaintiff merely remarked “Disputed” in response to Defendant’s statements without explaining the reasons for her disagreements and without referencing or attaching copies of the record in support of her positions . Defendant filed a motion to deem its statement of undisputed facts as admitted on May 12, 2003 due to Plaintiff’s failure to properly respond .  \nLong after the time for responding to the summary judgment motion had expired, and after Defendant had filed the motion to deem its statement of material facts as admitted, Plaintiff filed her Amended Responses to Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts on June 27, 2003. Plaintiff maintained that Defendant’s statement of material facts was too lengthy and she could not prepare a complete response within the time allotted . In that regard, the Court notes that the appropriate course of action would have been to request an extension of time, rather than filing an incomplete response that failed to comply with the local rules . However, in the interest of permitting Plaintiff to fully present her claims the Court has considered Plaintiff’slate-filed responses and the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to deem its undisputed facts as admitted .  \nII . Motion to Strike Certain Exhibits  \nIn her initial response to the motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff also failed to properly authenticate a number of the exhibits filed along with her response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in accordance with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) . Exhibits numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 26 were not properly authenticated by the use of an affidavit or deposition testimony .2 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d § 2722 (1998) (“To be admissible, documents must be authenticated by and attached to an affidavit that meets the requirements of Rule 56(e) .”); Federal Express Corp . v . United States Postal Serv . , 75 F . Supp .2d 807, 815 (W .D . Tenn . 1999) . Defendant moved to strike these exhibits on May 12, 2003.  \nPlaintiff filed a response on June 27, 2003 and attempted to authenticate exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10 and 20, which consist of a series of medical records, by reference to the deposition of Dr . Joel Reisman, an expert witness . Although Federal Rule of Evidence 703 permits Dr . Reisman to rely on these records from","cbCaignukfwQXbrd","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaignukfwQXbrd","pdf",132206,36,"English","# Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment\n## Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Deem Undisputed Facts as Admitted\n## Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Strike Unauthenticated Exhibits\n# Motion to Deem Undisputed Facts as Admitted\n# Motion to Strike Certain Exhibits","[{\"question\":\"What did the court grant regarding the summary judgment motion?\",\"answer\":\"The Court grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did the court deny the motion to deem undisputed facts as admitted?\",\"answer\":\"The Court considered Plaintiff’s late-filed responses in the interest of allowing her to present her claims, despite noncompliance with local rules.\"},{\"question\":\"On what grounds did the court address Defendant’s motion to strike exhibits?\",\"answer\":\"The Court examined whether the exhibits were properly authenticated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e), including whether supporting materials were attached by affidavit or deposition testimony.\"}]","Almella Starks-Umoja v. Federal Express Corporation - Order Granting and Denying Motions for Summary Judgment | PDF",13]