Opinion
No. C 03-05858 JW.
October 5, 2004
ORDER GRANTING FTD'S RULE 56(f) REQUEST AND DENYING TELEFLORA'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Telefora LLC ("Teleflora") moves for partial summary judgment on Defendant Florists' Transworld Delivery, Inc.'s ("FTD") First and Second Counterclaims. FTD opposes Teleflora's motion and requests, under FED. R. CIV. P. 56(f) (Rule 56(f)), a continuance until eight months after Teleflora completes its document production. This Court finds it appropriate, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), to take the motion under submission for decision based upon the papers filed by the parties, without oral argument. Having considered the submissions of the parties, this Court grants FTD's Rule 56(f) request and denies Telefora's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment without prejudice.
II. BACKGROUND
FTD filed seven counterclaims on June 11, 2004. FTD's First and Second Counterclaims both allege violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2 (2004), which states that "[e]very person who shall . . . attempt to monopolize . . . shall be punished." FTD's First Counterclaim claims that Teleflora attempted to monopolize the Floral Wire Services Market. FTD's Second Counterclaim claims that Teleflora attempted to monopolize the Florist Shop Management Systems Market. Teleflora filed its Answer to FTD's Counterclaims on August 5, 2004 and its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on August 16, 2004.
III. STANDARDS
Rule 56(f) grants this Court the authority to refuse a movant's application for summary judgment if the opposing party's declarations show that he or she "cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify the party's opposition." The purpose of Rule 56(f) is to prevent the opposing party from being "railroaded" by a premature motion for summary judgment. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326 (1986). The opposing party must show what facts she hopes to discover that will raise material issues fact, specific reasons why such evidence cannot be presented at the present time, and steps/procedures which the opposing party intends to utilize to obtain such evidence. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir. 1991) and WILLIAM W. SCHWARZER, A. WALLACE TASHIMA JAMES M. WAGSTAFFE, FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL ¶ 14:114 (2004). A lesser showing of specificity may be allowed when a summary judgment motion is filed early on in a litigation. "Where . . . a summary judgment motion is filed so early in the litigation, before a party has had any realistic opportunity to pursue discovery relating to its theory of the case, district courts should grant any Rule 56(f) motion fairly freely." Burlington Northern Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. Assiniboine Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation, 323 F.3d 767, 773 (9th Cir. 2003).
IV. DISCUSSION
Teleflora filed its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment a mere two months or so after FTD filed its Counterclaims. In fact, Teleflora did not make its initial document production available to FTD until August 16, 2004 — the same day that it filed its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Plainly, Telefora's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment has been filed so early, relative to FTD's Counterclaims, that FTD has not had any realistic opportunity to pursue discovery relating to its theory of the case. (Declaration of Caroline N. Mitchell in Support of FTD's Opposition to Telefora's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, hereinafter Mitchell Declaration, at ¶ 13.) Because Teleflora has filed its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment so early, the specificity that FTD must show for Rule 56(f) relief is lowered. Accordingly, Paragraph 14 of the Mitchell Declaration adequately sets forth the facts that FTD hopes to discover that will raise material issues of fact.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, FTD's Rule 56(f) request is granted. However, rather than set an amorphous date of "eight months after Teleflora completes its document production" as the date after which Teleflora may file a motion for summary judgment, this Court elects instead to set a more absolute date. Unless otherwise stipulated to by the parties, Teleflora shall not notice a hearing for a motion for summary judgment for any date earlier than June 27, 2005. Accordingly, this Court denies Teleflora's present Motion for Partial Summary Judgment without prejudice.