Opinion
No. 03 C 7882.
October 19, 2004
On September 15, 2004, this court denied, without prejudice, defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts I — III of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint ("summary judgment motion"). That denial was based on plaintiff's argument that she had not been given adequate opportunity to conduct discovery so as to prepare a response to the summary judgment motion. Also on September 15, 2004, plaintiff filed her Motion for Class Certification. On September 21, 2004, defendants filed their Motion for Reconsideration of this court's September 15, 2004 Order denying their summary judgment motion. On October 5, 2004, this court, at defendants' behest, stayed the briefing of the Motion for Class Certification pending a ruling on defendants' Motion for Reconsideration because, as defendants asserted, a ruling on the choice-of-law issue presented in the summary judgment motion will significantly impact the issue of class certification. For the following reasons, the Motion to Reconsider is denied and the Motion for Class Certification is stricken.
As explained, the defendants have argued that a ruling on their summary judgment motion is necessary prior to a ruling on plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, and plaintiff has argued that she cannot adequately respond to defendants' summary judgment motion without more time for discovery. The parties dispute whether plaintiff has had adequate discovery for purposes of responding to the summary judgment motion. Specifically, defendants argue that the plaintiff filed a single motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) for leave to conduct discovery in response to the summary judgment motion and that this motion was granted. Furthermore, defendants argue that any discovery the plaintiff may conduct is irrelevant to the choice-of-law issue presented in the summary judgment motion. However, defendants have also argued, at least in part, that they should be granted summary judgment because plaintiff has not presented sufficient facts to support her opposition to the summary judgment motion. (Def.'s S.J. Reply at pp. 5-6.) A ruling on the summary judgment motion without providing plaintiff further opportunity to conduct discovery would be inappropriate. Therefore, the Motion for Reconsideration is denied and, as explained below, the parties are given additional time to conduct discovery relevant to defendants' summary judgment motion. Furthermore, as argued by defendants, this court will not consider a motion for class certification until the choice-of-law issue presented in the summary judgment motion is decided. Consequently, the Motion for Class Certification filed on September 15, 2004 is stricken and may be renewed, as explained below, after the resolution of the choice-of-law issue.
Accordingly, defendants' Motion for Reconsideration is denied and the Motion for Class Certification is stricken. This court grants the parties until January 31, 2005 to conduct discovery relevant to the choice-of-law issue presented in defendants' summary judgment motion. Any motions relating to that discovery will be referred to the expertise of Magistrate Judge Brown. If defendants desire to renew their summary judgment motion after that discovery period, such a motion shall be filed on February 14, 2005, with a response from plaintiff filed on February 28, 2005, and a reply filed on March 7, 2005. A briefing schedule on a renewed motion for class certification will be included in this court's ruling on the renewed summary judgment motion. All previously set dates shall stand.