Solis v. Hotels.com Texas, Inc.

Full title: ISABEL SOLIS and TRISHA HOLLOWAY, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of…

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

Date published: Aug 31, 2004

Civil Action No. 3:03-CV-0618-L (N.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2004)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 3:03-CV-0618-L.

August 31, 2004

ORDER

SAM LINDSAY, District Judge

By order dated August 25, 2003, the court referred this case to the United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial management. Upon reviewing its docket of pending motions, the court notes that Plaintiffs' motion for continuance pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f), which was filed on October 22, 2003 as part of their response to Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, remains pending. This motion was not addressed by the magistrate judge in his Report filed on March 25, 2004, and Plaintiffs did not specifically challenge the matter in their objections to the Report. Instead, Plaintiffs maintained that the magistrate judge erred by improperly weighing the summary judgment evidence and neglecting to draw all reasonable inferences in their favor. Plaintiffs further contended that they had provided sufficient summary judgment evidence to raise a genuine issues of material fact exist and that the magistrate judge misapplied the appropriate summary judgment standard.

Rule 56(f) authorizes a court to grant a continuance when the nonmovant has not had an opportunity to conduct discovery that is essential to his or her opposition to a motion for summary judgment.¹ Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 n. 5 (1986). The Rule is an important ingredient of the federal summary judgment scheme, and provides a mechanism for dealing with the problem of premature summary judgment motions. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326 (1986). The court does not believe that a Rule 56(f) continuance is appropriate in this case for two reasons.

1 Rule 56(f) provides:

Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion [for summary judgment] that a party cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify the party's opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just.

First, Plaintiffs have stated, both in their response to the summary judgment motion and in their objections to the Report, that they have provided sufficient summary judgment evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact to withstand Defendants' motion. Therefore, Plaintiffs' motion is moot. Second, Plaintiffs have not submitted an affidavit identifying specific facts that they believe additional discovery will show, or how the additional facts will create an issue for trial. See Stearns Airport Equip. Co. v. FMC Corp., 170 F.3d 518, 535 (5th Cir. 1999). As the parties seeking a continuance, Plaintiffs had the burden of (1) identifying precisely what discovery was sought; (2) explaining how the additional discovery would help them meet their burden in opposing summary judgment; and (3) demonstrating that they had diligently pursued discovery. See Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 28 F.3d 1388, 1396 (5^th Cir. 1994). Plaintiffs have failed to meet any of these requirements.

Accordingly, for the reasons herein stated, Plaintiffs' Alternative Motion for Rule 56(f) Continuance, filed October 22, 2003, is denied.

It is so ordered