ColfaxNet, LLC v. City of Colfax

Filing 38

ORDER Re: Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 9/14/2020: Court grants defendant's request to defer consideration of the summary judgment motion in order to allow defendant to conduct limited discovery to respond to 22 plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and ORDERS as follows: 1) On or before 9/29/2020 plaintiff shall respond to defendant's Interrogatories Nos. 2, 4, 7, 13, and 14 and defendant's Request for Admissi on No. 5. Plaintiff shall also produce the principals of ColfaxNet LLC, Corey and Lynele Juchau, for their respective depositions, which shall be completed by 9/29/2020. The depositions shall each be completed within four hours, without subject mat ter limitation, and with the understanding that the time consumed by objections of counsel and any discussion of objections will not count against the four-hour time limitation; 2) Defendant shall have until 10/13/2020 to file its amended Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; 3) Plaintiff shall have until 10/20/2020 to submit its amended Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; and 4) The hearing on the 22 Motion for Summary Judgment will be held on 11/2/2020 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12

COLFAXNET, LLC,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

No. 2:19-cv-2167 WBS-CKD

v.

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CITY OF COLFAX,
Defendant.

17
18

----oo0oo----

19

Plaintiff ColfaxNet, LLC (“Plaintiff”), brought this

20

action against Defendant City of Colfax (“Defendant”) alleging

21

violations of the Federal Telecommunications Act (“FTA”), 47

22

U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 1455, and its implementing

23

regulations codified at 47 C.F.R. § 1600.

24

its operative complaint that the defendant: (i) did not act on

25

plaintiff’s request to modify an existing wireless communication

26

facility within a reasonable period of time, (ii) failed to draft

27

a written denial of the plaintiff’s request supported by a

28

written record, (iii) improperly considered radio frequency
1

Plaintiff alleges in

1

emissions in issuing the denial of plaintiff’s request, (iv)

2

unlawfully prohibited plaintiff from providing service, and (v)

3

unlawfully denied plaintiff’s eligible facilities request.

4

generally Compl. (Docket No. 1).)

5

(See

Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief in

6

the form of a court order stating that the defendant violated the

7

FCA and mandating that the defendant issue the requisite permits

8

for plaintiff to proceed with the placement, construction, and/or

9

modification of the ColfaxNet wireless service facilities

10

proposed in the applications.

11

1).)

12

(See generally Compl. (Docket No.

On August 3, 2020, plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary

13

Judgment.1

14

defendant filed its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, in which

15

defendant requested, inter alia, that the court defer deciding

16

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment until plaintiff complies

17

with its court-ordered discovery obligations.

18

(“MSJ”) (Docket No. 22.)

On August 25, 2020,

(Docket No. 28.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d)(1) provides that

19

if a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for

20

specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify

21

its opposition, the court may “defer considering the motion or

22

deny it.”

23

recognized that this rule prevents parties from being

24

“railroaded” by premature motions if the nonmoving party has not

25

had an opportunity to make full discovery.

26
27
28

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d)(1).

The Supreme Court has

See Celotex Corp. v.

Plaintiff ColfaxNet has not moved for summary judgment
on two counts in their complaint (denial not based on substantial
evidence and effective prohibition of wireless service.) (See
Pl.’s Reply at 2) (Docket No.30).)
2
1

1

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326 (1986).

2

Pursuant to the discussion with the parties at the

3

hearings held on September 8 and 14, 2020, the court will grant

4

defendant’s request to defer consideration of the summary

5

judgment motion in order to allow defendant to conduct limited

6

discovery to respond to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

7

Accordingly, the court ORDERS as follows:

8
9

1.

On or before September 29, 2020, plaintiff shall

respond to defendant’s Interrogatories Nos. 2, 4, 7, 13, and 14

10

and defendant’s Request for Admission No. 5.

11

also produce the principals of ColfaxNet LLC, Corey and Lynele

12

Juchau, for their respective depositions, which shall be

13

completed by September 29, 2020.

14

completed within four hours, without subject matter limitation,

15

and with the understanding that the time consumed by objections

16

of counsel and any discussion of objections will not count

17

against the four-hour time limitation.

18

2.

Plaintiff shall

The depositions shall each be

Defendant shall have until October 13, 2020 to

19

file its amended Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

20

Judgment.

21

3.

Plaintiff shall have until October 20, 2020 to

22

submit its amended Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion

23

for Summary Judgment.

24

4.

25

will be held at 1:30 PM on November 2, 2020.

26
27

The hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 14, 2020

28
3