Filed: Feb. 24, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 24, 2016
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER EDMUND A. SARGUS, Jr. , Chief District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Refuse Defendants Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss, Shellie Hill, and Bank of America, N.A.'s Motions for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Grant Plaintiff Additional Time to Conduct Discovery ("Plaintiff's Rule 56(d) Motion"), filed on February 19, 2016. (ECF No. 83.) Plaintiff's motion responds to the Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER EDMUND A. SARGUS, Jr. , Chief District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Refuse Defendants Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss, Shellie Hill, and Bank of America, N.A.'s Motions for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Grant Plaintiff Additional Time to Conduct Discovery ("Plaintiff's Rule 56(d) Motion"), filed on February 19, 2016. (ECF No. 83.) Plaintiff's motion responds to the Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Bank of America, N.A. ("..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
EDMUND A. SARGUS, Jr., Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Refuse Defendants Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss, Shellie Hill, and Bank of America, N.A.'s Motions for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Grant Plaintiff Additional Time to Conduct Discovery ("Plaintiff's Rule 56(d) Motion"), filed on February 19, 2016. (ECF No. 83.) Plaintiff's motion responds to the Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Bank of America, N.A. ("BANA") on February 8, 2016 (ECF No. 76), and Defendants Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss ("LSR") and Shellie Hill on February 9, 2016 (ECF No. 77.)
Plaintiff moves under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), which provides:
If a non-movant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may (1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).
In Plaintiff's properly supported motion, he asserts that he cannot present facts essential to justify his opposition because "there are numerous complex issues that require substantial discovery before this matter is heard before the Court. Further, a Motion to Compel the production of discovery from both BANA and LSR is pending. (ECF #82.)" (ECF No. 83, at 4.) Plaintiff's arguments are well taken.
The October 2, 2015, Pretrial Scheduling Order set a discovery deadline of March 31, 2016, and a deadline of April 30, 2016 for filing motions for summary judgment. (ECF No. 64.) Defendants have filed their Motions for Summary Judgment weeks prior to the close of discovery, and months prior to the deadline for filing summary judgment motions. The Court will permit Plaintiff the allocated time to conduct discovery.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Rule 56(d) Motion (ECF No. 83) and DENIES without prejudice Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 76, 77.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
