Opinion
Case No.: 16cv3085-JAH (RBB)
12-12-2017
SOLARCITY CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL DORIA, an individual Defendant. DANIEL DORIA, an individual, Counterclaimant, v. SOLARCITY CORPORATION, Counter-Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE (Doc. No. 81) //
INTRODUCTION
Presently before the Court is Defendant's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No 81], and Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. [Doc. No. 89]. After a careful review of the pleadings filed by both parties, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
BACKGROUND
On December 23, 2016, Solar City Corporation ("Solar City" and "Plaintiff") filed this action against Daniel Doria ("Defendant" and "Doria") for breach of contract and violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, 18 U.S.C. § 1836, et seq. ("DTSA"). See Doc. No. 1. A scheduling order pertaining to discovery was issued by Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks on May 4, 2017. See Doc. No. 39. That scheduling order indicated all discovery shall be completed by January 8, 2018. Id. Additionally, Defendant has filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses [Doc. No. 69] and Plaintiff has filed two Motions to Compel Further Responses. [Doc. Nos. 43, 84]. Plaintiff's latest Motion to Compel Further Responses is set for a hearing on December 20, 2017 in front of Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks. See Doc. No 86. Defendant filed an Amended Motion for Summary Judgment on November 9, 2017. [Doc. No. 81]. Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition To Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment wherein they argue Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied on its merits, or in the alternative, the motion should be stayed to allow the completion of discovery, which this Court has interpreted as a Rule 56(d) motion. See Doc. No. 89.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) allows a court to deny or postpone a motion for summary judgment "if the nonmoving party has not had an opportunity to make full discovery." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326 (1986). Courts generously grant Rule 56(d) motions "unless the non-moving party has not diligently pursued discovery of evidence." Burlington N. Santa Fe R. Co. v. Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck Reservation, 323 F.3d 767, 773-74 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). Additionally, ". . . denial [of a Rule 56(d) motion] is especially inappropriate where . . . the material sought is also the subject of outstanding discovery requests." Id. at 775. Plaintiff argues that Defendant has refused to produce requested documents and Defendant has not yet been deposed. See Doc. No. 84-2 ¶ 4. Plaintiff further argues that it is entitled to the documents it seeks through its Motions to Compel and to take Defendant's deposition prior to consideration of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. See Doc. No. 89. This Court agrees, finding that a ruling on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment at this time would be premature, as Plaintiffs has not had an opportunity to make full discovery in this case.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendant may bring a Motion for Summary Judgment again once all discovery disputes are resolved and discovery is closed. The hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, scheduled for December 18, 2017 at 2:30 p.m., is VACATED. Dated: December 12, 2017
/s/_________
JOHN A. HOUSTON
United States District Judge