ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT MESSER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 56(d) (Doc. 22)

TIMOTHY S. BLACK, District Judge.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) permits a party faced with a motion for summary judgment to "show[ ] by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition ..." "The burden is on the party seeking additional discovery to demonstrate why such discovery is necessary." Summer v. Leis, 368 F.3d 881, 887 (6th Cir. 2004). "Bare allegations or vague assertions of the need for discovery are not enough." Id. "In order to fulfill the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56[(d)], [a plaintiff] must state with `some precision the materials he hopes to obtain with further discovery, and exactly how he expects those materials would help him in opposing summary judgment.'" Id. (quoting Simmons Oil Corp. v. Tesoro Petroleum Corp., 86 F.3d 1138, 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), Plaintiff moves the Court to set a discovery schedule and stay briefing of Defendant Messer Construction Company's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 14) until after allegedly necessary discovery can be completed. (Doc. 22 at 2). Plaintiff has indicated that he needs this extension of time to respond in order "to discover information strictly held and known by Messer germane to its compliance with the statutory obligations that it alleges provides it immunity for Mr. Stolz's negligence claims against it." (Doc. 29 at 3). Plaintiff further explains that "R.C. §§ 4123.74 and 4123.35(O)(2) only provides such protection to self-insuring employers who comply with R.C. § 4123.35." (Id. at 3-4). The Court finds this is a sufficiently specific description of the information that Plaintiff hopes to discover and how it would be used to oppose summary judgment.

However, the Court also recognizes the merit of Defendant Messer Construction Company's argument that issues related to claims of immunity should be addressed at the earliest possible stage and "prior to investing the time, effort, and expense of the courts, attorneys, parties, and witnesses." Summerville v. Forest Park, 128 Ohio St.3d 221, 2010-Ohio-6280, ¶ 39. Furthermore, once a court finds that a party has met his burden under Rule 56(d), it has the discretion to make any order regarding discovery as is just. Cacevic v. City of Hazel Park, 226 F.3d 483, 488 (6th Cir. 2000). Therefore, the Court also finds that the requested discovery is appropriately limited solely to those facts related to the issue of Workers' Compensation immunity.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Defendant Messer Construction Company's Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Rule 56(d) (Doc. 22) is hereby GRANTED. Briefing on Defendant Messer Construction Company's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 14) is STAYED and a briefing schedule will be established along with the rest of the litigation calendar at the Preliminary Pretrial Conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.