(PC) Scott v. Garcia

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 11, 2024
• Docket: 1:20-cv-00317
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDRE SCOTT, Case No. 1:20-cv-317-JLT-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISREGARD DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 13 v. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

14 T. YOUNG and CHARLES EDWARDS, (Doc. No. 38)

15 Defendants. APRIL 17, 2024 DEADLINE 16 17 18 19 20 Pending before the Court is Defendants T. Young and Charles Edwards’ Motion for 21 Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 37, “MSJ”). In response, Plaintiff filed a Motion directing the 22 Clerk of Court to disregard the MSJ because it was filed prematurely and not in compliance with 23 the Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order (“DSO”). (Doc. No. 38, “Plaintiff’s Motion”). For 24 the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion. 25 BACKGROUND 26 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, is proceeding on his Second Amended Complaint alleging an 27 Eighth Amendment deliberate medical indifference claim against Defendants Young and 28 Edwards. (See Doc. No. 29). On August 9, 2023, after Defendants filed an answer, the Court 1 issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order. (Doc. No. 35, “DSO”). The DSO set a May 9, 2024 2 deadline to complete discovery and an August 9, 2024 deadline to file dispositive motions. (See 3 Doc. No. 35 at 1). 4 On February 13, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting that 5 there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of 6 law, that they are entitled to qualified immunity, and that Plaintiff’s claim is barred by the statute 7 of limitations. (See generally Doc. No. 37). On February 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a pleading 8 titled “Motion for Order Directing the Clerk of Court to Disregard Defendant’s [sic] Filing of 9 Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment Instructing Defendants’ [sic] to Maintain 10 Compliance With Court-Ordered Case Management Deadlines.” (Doc. No. 38, “Motion”). 11 Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s Motion asserts that Defendants prematurely filed their MSJ 12 because discovery remains outstanding and under the DSO they may not file a dispositive motion 13 until the discovery deadline has passed. (Id. at 3-4). Specifically, Plaintiff states that on February 14 21, 2024, he submitted to correctional officials for mailing Requests for Admission (“RFAs”) for 15 Defendants Young and Edwards, which remained unanswered when they filed their MSJ. (Id. at 16 4). Plaintiff attaches to his Motion the RFAs and 130 pages of additional exhibits. (See id. at 6- 17 140). 18 APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(b) states that “[u]nless a different time is set by local 20 rule or the court orders otherwise, a party may file a motion for summary judgment at any time 21 until 30 days after the close of discovery.” While this Court has set an August 9, 2024 deadline 22 for dispositive motions (Doc. No. 35), it has not stated that the parties could not file dispositive 23 motions prior to the close of discovery. See Jaramillo v. Tappan, 2023 WL 8599714, at *1 (E.D. 24 Cal. July 12, 2023) (finding MSJ not premature when filed prior to close of discovery). Thus, 25 Defendants’ MSJ is not per se premature because it was filed before the close of discovery. 26 To the extent Plaintiff asserts that he requires additional time to conduct discovery before 27 filing a response to Defendants’ MSJ, he may file a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 28 Procedure 56(d) in response to the MSJ. Summary judgment is generally only appropriate after a 1 nonmovant has had adequate time for discovery. Rule 56(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure 2 governs when facts are unavailable to a nonmovant and provides: 3 If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the 4 court may: 5 (1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain 6 affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order. 7 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). Local Rule 260(b) similarly provides that a party may oppose a summary 9 judgment motion due to the need to conduct further discovery when the motion “provide[s] a 10 specification of the particular facts on which discovery is to be had or the issues on which 11 discovery is necessary.” The party moving under Rule 56(d) bears the burden of demonstrating 12 the requisite basis for relief. Atay v. Cty. Of Maui, 842 F.3d 688, 698 (9th Cir. 2016). The 13 purpose of Rule 56(d) is “to prevent a party form being unfairly thrown out of court by a 14 premature motion for summary judgment.” See Jackson v. Riebold, 815 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th 15 Cir. 2016) (citations omitted); see also Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. The Assiniboine, 16 323 F.3d 767, 773 (9th Cir. 2003). 17 To obtain a Rule 56(d) continuance, the nonmovant “must demonstrate ‘how 18 postponement of a ruling on the motion will enable him, by discovery or other means, to rebut the 19 movant’s showing of the absence of a genuine issue of fact.’” United States v. 5,644,540.00 in 20 U.S. Currency, 799 F.2d 1357, 1363 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Securities & Exchange Commission 21 v. Spence & Green Chemical Co., 612 F.2d 896, 901 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1082, 22 (1981)). The nonmovant “must show that ‘(1) it has set forth in affidavit form the specific facts it 23 hopes to elicit from further discovery; (2) the facts sought exist; and (3) the sought-after facts are 24 essential to oppose summary judgment.’” Midbrook Flowerbulbs Holland B.V. v. Holland Am. 25 Bulb Farms, Inc., 874 F.3d 604, 619-20 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Family Home & Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. 26 Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 525 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2008)). Rule 56(d) does not condone 27 a fishing expedition and mere speculation about outstanding discovery needed is insufficient. See 28 Securities Exchange Commission v. Stein, 906 F.3d 823, 832 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Singh v. 1 || American Honda Finance Corporation, 925 F.3d 1053, 1076 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding no abuse of 2 | discretion when district court denied Rule 56(d) motion because non-movant provided only 3 | conclusory statements to support more time for discovery). 4 As noted above, the mere fact that Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment 5 || prior to the close of discovery does not make it premature or justify Plaintiffs request that 6 | Defendants’ Motion be stricken. Thus, Plaintiff is required to file a response to Defendants’ MSJ. 7 | See Local Rule 230(1). To the extent Plaintiff seeks additional time to conduct discovery before 8 | filing a response to the MSJ, he must file an appropriate motion the conforms to the requirements 9 | of Rule 56(d). 10 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 11 1. Plaintiffs Motion to Disregard Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 12 | 38) is DENIED for the reasons set forth herein. 13 2. Plaintiff shall deliver his response to Defendants’ MSJ to correctional officials for 14 | mailing no later than April 17, 2024, after which time the Court will deem Defendants’ MSJ 15 | submitted for review. 16 '7 | Dated: _ March 11,2024 Mila Wh fareh Base 18 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28