Summary
granting Rule 56(d) motion when plaintiff filed a motion to compel, had yet to receive the sought-after discovery, and "the very discovery that [p]laintiff requested" was being used by defendants "as a basis for their summary judgment motion"
Summary of this case from Reyes v. BJ's Rests., Inc.Opinion
Case No. 12-20159-Civ-SCOLA
08-13-2012
RODNEY G. CEANT, Plaintiff, v. AVENTURA LIMOUSINE & TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, INC. et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S RULE 56(d) MOTION;
DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the Plaintiff's Rule 56(d) Motion to Deny or Defer Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 87].
Upon consideration, this Motion is granted. Here, Plaintiff explains that Defendants have failed to provide the discovery he has requested, necessitating the motion to compel that is presently before Magistrate Judge Bandstra. Yet, according to Plaintiff, Defendants have also used the very discovery that Plaintiff requested as a basis for their summary judgment motion, while at the same time depriving him of access to it. By the instant Motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court either deny the Defendants' summary judgment motion or defer ruling upon it, until the Plaintiff is able to receive the necessary discovery relating to Defendants' motion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) provides that the non-movant's justified inability to present facts or evidence essential to his opposition to summary judgment constitutes grounds for denial of the summary judgment motion. Further, the Eleventh Circuit has instructed that "[s]ummary judgment should not be granted until the party opposing the motion has an adequate opportunity for discovery," and "[g]enerally summary judgment is inappropriate when the party opposing the motion has been unable to obtain responses to his discovery requests." Snook v. Trust Co. of Ga. Bank of Savannah, N.A., 859 F.2d 865, 870 (11th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Plaintiff's Motion [ECF No. 87] is GRANTED.
2. The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 83] is DENIED, with leave to re-file.
3. After Magistrate Judge Bandstra rules on the outstanding discovery issues, the Defendants may re-file their summary judgment motion. They may do so immediately after Judge Bandstra rules, if Judge Bandstra determines that Plaintiff is not entitled to any of the discovery. Otherwise, the summary judgment motion shall not be re-filed until after Plaintiff is able to complete the necessary discovery, as ordered by Judge Bandstra.
DONE and ORDERED in chambers, at Miami, Florida on August 13, 2012.
______________________
ROBERT N. SCOLA , JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
U.S. Magistrate Judge Bandstra
All Counsel of Record