Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-cv-4265
December 22, 2003
MEMORANDUM
The issues presented by Plaintiff's Motion to Compel discovery are whether Defendant's position, that the Court should decide its Motion for Summary Judgment before allowing any discovery, is valid in light of a Rule 56(f) affidavit of Plaintiffs counsel, and whether Plaintiff's discovery requests are proper.
Plaintiff claims that she was terminated from her employment because of racial discrimination. After the Complaint was filed, without filing an Answer to the Complaint, Defendant moved for summary judgment on September 22, 2003 (Docket No. 3) before the Court scheduled a pretrial conference pursuant to Rule 16, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff was terminated because Defendant had a valid business reason to reassign her to a different job, and she refused retraining for that new job. On October 2, 2003, Plaintiff served discovery in the form of Requests for Documents and Interrogatories. Defendant objected to the discovery solely on the grounds that "it would be unduly burdensome for Defendant to respond to these Interrogatories at this time" because its Motion for Summary Judgment is pending, and if granted, would dispose of all issues in the case. Defendant purported to reserve "all other objections which may now be asserted until such time as it is obligated to respond to Plaintiff's Interrogatories in this matter."
On October 9, 2003, Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 4), attaching a Rule 56(f) affidavit of Plaintiff's counsel. Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Compel discovery on December 12, 2003 (Docket No. 6).
There are several issues presented.
1. Is Plaintiffs Rule 56(f) Affidavit Sufficient to Require Discovery before the Court Considers Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment?
The Third Circuit held in Dowling v. City of Philadelphia. 885 F.2d 136 (1988) that a party opposing summary judgment, on the grounds that discovery was essential, must file an affidavit as provided in Rule 56(f), stating "what particular information is sought, how, if uncovered, it would preclude summary judgment; and why it has not previously been obtained." 855 F.2d at 140.
In this case, there was no opportunity for Plaintiff to previously obtain the discovery, and the Court finds that the Plaintiff has acted diligently. Although Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs lawyer's affidavit is vague, the Court finds that the following statement of what discovery the Plaintiff desires meets the requirements of Rule 56(f):
5. Consequently, Plaintiff has not yet had the opportunity to question Defendant's decision-makers regarding their awareness of and reaction to Plaintiff's complaints that she believed she was being treated less favorably because of her race (black), or with respect to challenging the pretextual claim that Defendant reasonably believed that Plaintiff was unwilling to be trained to perform corrections and that she was looking for employment outside the company.
The Rule 56(f) affidavit also specifies that Plaintiff desires to inspect "e-mail and other documentation which Plaintiff believes will contradict Defendant's version of the facts, such as the complete version of the chain of e-mail messages" which Defendant has attached to its Motion for Summary Judgment. There is also appropriate reference to an affidavit of the Plaintiff herself submitted under Rule 56(e), showing specific factual disputes the Plaintiff raises with Defendant's moving papers.
This Court concludes that Plaintiff must have an opportunity to take discovery, and that the Court cannot rule on the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment until a reasonable time for this discovery has been allowed.
2. Should Defendant's Objections to Interrogatories Be Overruled?
As noted above, Defendant objected to Plaintiffs Interrogatories on the grounds that they were "burdensome", without further specification. Having reviewed Plaintiff's Requests and Interrogatories, the Court determines that the relevant time period is the year 2000 forward, and Defendant need not now provide information for any acts or omissions prior to January 1, 2000. The Court also finds that Interrogatory No. 6 is not relevant, and Request for Documents No. 6 is not relevant, and No. 7 is overly broad, but may be restated to be more specific once Defendant files its Answer to the Complaint. Plaintiff's other discovery requests are not burdensome, and the Court will require Defendant to produce all other documents requested and answer all other Interrogatories within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
Defendant's attempt to preserve additional objections is specifically contrary to the provisions of Rule 33(b)(4):
All grounds for an objection to an interrogatory shall be stated with specificity. Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the party's failure to object is excused by the court for good cause shown.
A similar concept is provided in Rule 34(b) which states, with regard to Requests for Production of Documents that "the response shall state . . . unless the request is objected to, in which event the reasons for the objections shall be stated."
Although Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment may have merit, the Court will not consider its merits until discovery has been completed, and the Motion will be denied without prejudice.
An appropriate Order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this ___ day of December, 2003, for the reasons stated in the foregoing Memorandum, and after a telephone conference with counsel, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel discovery (Docket No. 6) is GRANTED in part and denied in part, and Defendant shall produce documents and answer Interrogatories within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
2. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 3) is DENIED without prejudice. Following the completion of discovery, and prior to the deadline for the filing of dispositive motions, Defendant may notify the Court that it is renewing its Motion for Summary Judgment, and need not re-file the same papers, but may supplement them with any additional materials, and may also file a reply brief within ten (10) days after Plaintiff has responded to the renewed Motion for Summary Judgment.
3. Having conferred with counsel, the Court adopts the following pretrial schedule:
a. All discovery shall be completed by March 31, 2004.
b. Exchange of expert reports pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2).
Plaintiff: March 5, 2004.
Defendant: March 19, 2004.
c. Report, by letter, to the court re: settlement: April 1, 2004.
Without disclosing any specific settlement position, counsel shall advise the court whether settlement discussions have taken place, and when the court should schedule a settlement conference.
d. Deadline for dispositive motions: April 15, 2004.
e. Pretrial Memoranda filed and served pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(c), and service of a copy of trial exhibits:
Plaintiff: April 22, 2004
Defendant: April 29, 2004.
f. Date for trial or entry into trial pool: June 14, 2004.
g. The parties shall follow Judge Baylson's pretrial and trial procedures (copy attached for counsel).