SULLIVAN v. WAL-MART STORES, EAST, LP, 8:11-cv-01597-T-MAP. (2012)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20120405a46
Visitors: 12
Filed: Apr. 04, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 04, 2012
Summary: ORDER MARK A. PIZZO, Magistrate Judge. This cause is before the Court on Defendant's motion for summary judgment (doc. 19) and Plaintiff's response thereto (doc. 20). 1 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to clean up a spill on its floor resulting in Plaintiff's injuries from a slip and fall. According to its motion for summary judgment, Defendant maintains that a surveillance video recorded the accident and evidences that the slippery condition was created by another customer approximat
Summary: ORDER MARK A. PIZZO, Magistrate Judge. This cause is before the Court on Defendant's motion for summary judgment (doc. 19) and Plaintiff's response thereto (doc. 20). 1 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to clean up a spill on its floor resulting in Plaintiff's injuries from a slip and fall. According to its motion for summary judgment, Defendant maintains that a surveillance video recorded the accident and evidences that the slippery condition was created by another customer approximate..
More
ORDER
MARK A. PIZZO, Magistrate Judge.
This cause is before the Court on Defendant's motion for summary judgment (doc. 19) and Plaintiff's response thereto (doc. 20).1 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to clean up a spill on its floor resulting in Plaintiff's injuries from a slip and fall. According to its motion for summary judgment, Defendant maintains that a surveillance video recorded the accident and evidences that the slippery condition was created by another customer approximately two minutes and five seconds prior to Plaintiff's fall (doc. 19 ¶ 2).
While summary judgment may be sought immediately after the commencement of the lawsuit and prior to discovery, a nonmoving party must be afforded "adequate time for discovery." See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L. Ed. 2d. 265 (1986). In the instant case, the purported surveillance video has not yet been provided to Plaintiff, Defendant has not provided initial disclosures, responded to request for production, responded to interrogatories, and Plaintiff is still deposing individuals employed by Defendant who were working at the time of the accident. Plaintiff must be given sufficient time to conduct meaningful discovery. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (doc. 19) is denied without prejudice.
DONE AND ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The parties consented to my jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c).
Source: Leagle
