WILLIAM B. SHUBB, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiffs City of West Sacramento, California (the "City") and the People of the State of California brought this action against defendants R&L Business Management, et al., to address toxic levels of soil and groundwater contamination in the environment within the City. The court now considers plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and defendant Smith's motion to continue plaintiffs' motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f).
This court described much of the factual and procedural background to this lawsuit in its prior orders. (See Docket Nos. 18, 33, 44, and 63.). The City now moves for partial summary judgment on its CERCLA,
"A district court should continue a summary judgment motion upon a good faith showing by affidavit that the continuance is needed to obtain facts essential to preclude summary judgment."
Courts usually employ a "generous approach toward granting [Rule 56(d)] motions."
Notably, "the Supreme Court has restated the rule as requiring, rather than merely permitting, discovery `where the nonmoving party has not had the opportunity to discover information that is essential to its opposition.'"
To comply with Rule 56(d), defendant must "submit affidavits setting forth the particular facts expected from further discovery."
Defendant Smith offers the declaration of his attorney, Michael C. Guasco. Mr. Guasco therein identifies several facts he expects to discover if given more time, including the source and bases of the opinions of Dr. Anne Farr. Because defendant Smith has "attached a detailed sworn declaration from counsel explaining the need for additional time and setting forth particular facts expected to be obtained" from the experts, defendant has satisfied the affidavit requirement under Rule 56(d).
Under Rule 56(d), the party requesting a continuance must show that the facts sought exist. "Denial of a Rule [56(d)] application is [therefore] proper where it is clear that the evidence sought is almost certainly nonexistent or is the object of pure speculation."
This court finds no reason to believe that the facts sought do not exist. Dr. Farr presumably relied on specific facts to reach her conclusions. Defendant therefore satisfies the existence requirement.
"[T]he party seeking the continuance must show that it lacks the `facts essential' to resist the summary judgment motion."
Here, defendant Smith seeks to develop facts essential to challenge plaintiff's summary judgment motion. For example, under CERCLA, plaintiff must show that defendant owned or operated facility "at the time of disposal" of a hazardous substance at the facility. 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(2). Plaintiffs rely on Dr. Farr to determine the timing of the release of the hazardous substance as it relates to defendant R&L Business Management. (Decl. of Anne Farr ("Farr Decl.") at 5-9 (Docket No. 107-4).) It is unclear whether Dr. Farr "can or will opine as to when any disposal may have occurred" during the time defendant Smith owned the property. (Def. Smith Opp. to Pls.' Mot. for Summ. J. at 5-6 (Docket No. 103).) Because defendant Smith "argue[s] that [plaintiff] has not adequately demonstrated causation with regards to [his] CERCLA liability," "further expert discovery" would help defendant raise a genuine issue of material fact.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Smith's Motion for Continuance of Summary Judgment (Docket No. 103) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
Defendant Smith shall complete the deposition of Dr. Farr on or before November 1, 2019. Defendant Smith shall submit his opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, and any other defendant may amend its response to the motion, on or before November 15, 2019. Plaintiffs shall submit their reply to Defendant Smith's opposition on or before November 22, 2019. The hearing on plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 95) is CONTINUED to December 2, 2019, at 1:30 p.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.