Summary
In Kosmoski, the court determined that because the parties had an informal agreement to stay discovery until a scheduled settlement conference, the plaintiff, who had not completed discovery when the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment (before the settlement conference), was not "so lazy or dilatory that she [was] precluded from obtaining a Rule 56([d]) continuance of discovery."
Summary of this case from Banks v. City of Phila.Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-CV-1555.
August 24, 2009
ORDER
AND NOW, this 19th day of August, 2009, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 15), Defendant's Errata to its Brief in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 16), Plaintiff's Rule 56(f) Affidavit in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 18), Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Response to Plaintiff's Rule 56(f) Affidavit (Doc. No. 22), Plaintiff's Sur-reply in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 23), and Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence (Doc. No. 14), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff's Rule 56(f) Affidavit in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 18), which will be construed as a motion to extend discovery, is GRANTED. An Amended Scheduling Order will be docketed;
2. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE WITH LEAVE TO RENEW by the date set forth in the Court's forthcoming Amended Scheduling Order; and
3. Defendant's Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 14) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE WITH LEAVE TO RENEW by the date set forth in the Court's forthcoming Amended Scheduling Order.