The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Dawn Lee Ann Brown,
Plaintiff, Case No. 1:18cv786
v. Judge Michael R. Barrett
Abubakar Atiq Durrani, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the Motion to Strike the Affidavit of Eric Deters
Regarding Dr. Durrani’s Travels Out of the State of Ohio filed by Defendants, Abubakar
Atiq Durrani, M.D. (“Durrani”) and Center for Advanced Spine Technologies, Inc.
(“CAST”). (Doc. 35). Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition. (Doc. 41). Defendants
filed a Reply. (Doc. 43).
The Affidavit of Eric Deters (Doc. 33) appears to be related to the application of
Ohio’s statute of repose, Ohio Revised Code § 2305.113(C). The same affidavit has been
filed in other cases brought against these same Defendants. The issue of whether the
statute of repose was tolled has been resolved in this case as well as in others. See
Cornett v. Durrani, No. 1:18-CV-787, 2021 WL 5177812, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 8, 2021)
(collecting cases). In any event, in addressing this same affidavit, this Court has ruled
that:
the Notice of Affidavit is substantively irrelevant and inadmissible in this
case. The Notice is also procedurally improper. Although Defendant's
motion invites this Court to strike the document, neither Rule 12(f) nor Rule
56(c) authorize striking the Notice of Affidavit. Therefore, the Court
construes Defendant's motion as seeking an order stating that the Notice of
Affidavit will be disregarded. This, the Court can do. In granting the motion
as so construed, the irony is not lost on the Court that the same remedy
would have been obtained had the Defendant filed no motion at all.
Powers v. Durrani, Case No. 1:18-CV-788, 2021 WL 5177813, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 8,
2021) (citing Landrum v. Durrani, Case No. 1:18-CV-807, 2021 WL 3666286, at *5 (S.D.
Ohio July 2, 2021).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike the Affidavit
(Doc. 35) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Michael R. Barrett
JUDGE MICHAEL R. BARRETT