Filed: Jul. 01, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 01, 2016
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Stay Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #24) filed on June 28, 2016. Because the Motion is unopposed, the matter is ripe for review. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), if the party opposing summary judgment "shows by affidavit or declaration, for specified reasons, that [she] cannot present facts essential to [her] opposition
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Stay Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #24) filed on June 28, 2016. Because the Motion is unopposed, the matter is ripe for review. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), if the party opposing summary judgment "shows by affidavit or declaration, for specified reasons, that [she] cannot present facts essential to [her] opposition,..
More
ORDER1
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Stay Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #24) filed on June 28, 2016. Because the Motion is unopposed, the matter is ripe for review.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), if the party opposing summary judgment "shows by affidavit or declaration, for specified reasons, that [she] cannot present facts essential to [her] 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). When seeking relief under Rule 56(d), a party "may not simply rely on vague assertions that additional discovery will produce needed, but unspecified, facts, but rather he must specifically demonstrate how postponement of a ruling on the motion will enable him, by discovery or other means, to rebut the movant's showing of the absence of a genuine issue of fact." Reflectone, Inc. v. Farrand Optical Co., 862 F.2d 841, 843-44 (11th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted).2 Moreover, courts generally should not grant summary judgment until the party opposing has had an opportunity to conduct discovery. See Snook v. Trust Co. of Georgia Bank of Savannah, N.A., 859 F.2d 865, 870 (11th Cir. 1988).
Turning to this action, the Case Management and Scheduling Order provides that the discovery deadline is not until September 30, 2016. (Doc. #15). Yet Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #22) on June 16, 2016. After the motion was filed, Plaintiff and Defendant discussed the schedule for Plaintiff's response and "agreed that [] Plaintiff ought be [sic] afforded the opportunity to take the deposition of [] Defendant's Affiants and the principal who supervised [] Plaintiff." (Doc. #24 at 2). Moreover, the parties "agreed that [] Plaintiff's Response to [] Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment shall be due 28 days following the[se] . . . depositions[,] which [] are scheduled to take place in August 2016." (Doc. #24 at 2-3). Because the parties have agreed that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment will not be ripe for over two months, the Court's finds good cause to grant Plaintiff's Rule 56(d) Motion (Doc. #24) and deny Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #22) without prejudice, so that it can be refiled once all the necessary discovery has taken place.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Stay Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #24) is GRANTED in part.
(2) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #22) is DENIED as premature but may be refiled prior to the dispositive motions deadline if Defendant so chooses.
DONE and ORDERED.
