U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Dillards, Inc. et al

Filing 63

ORDER denying without prejudice Dillard's 53 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting EEOC's 59 Ex Parte Motion to Shorten Time for Filing and and Hearing Plaintiff's Motion to Deny or Extend Deadlines Re Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Dillard's motion for summary judgment is denied w/o prejudice to re-noticing on 1/3/2012 or thereafter. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 9/28/2011. (jah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

U.S. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

CASE NO: 08-CV-1780-IEG (PCL)
ORDER (1) GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE RULE
56(d) MOTION, AND (2) DENYING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

vs.
DILLARD’S INC., DILLARD STORE
SERVICES, and DOES 1-11, inclusive,

16

Defendants.

[Doc. Nos. 53 & 59]

17
18
19

Defendants Dillard’s Inc. and Dillard Store Services, Inc. (collectively “Dillard’s”) have moved

20

for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Plaintiff EEOC opposes the motion

21

under Rule 56(d).1 Having considered the parties’ submissions, the Court GRANTS the EEOC’s Rule

22

56(d) motion [Doc. No. 59] and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Dillard’s motion for summary

23

judgment. [Doc. No. 53.]

24

///

25

///

26
27
28

1

Former Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) was amended in 2010. It is now set forth in
Rule 56(d). “Subdivision (d) carries forward without substantial changes the provisions of former
subdivision (f).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 advisory committee’s note.
1

1
2

BACKGROUND
On September 29, 2009, the EEOC initiated this action against Dillard’s to correct practices

3

allegedly violative of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the “ADA”) and to seek relief for

4

Ms. Corina Scott and other individuals adversely affected by those practices. Specifically, the EEOC

5

alleges Dillard’s inquired into its employees’ health-related issues without limiting its inquiries to job-

6

related functions as required by the ADA.

7

The commencement of discovery was delayed in this case while the parties attempted, without

8

success, to reach a settlement. The EEOC issued its first document production request in late-February

9

2011; Dillard’s issued its first interrogatories and production requests in late-April 2011. Dillard’s filed

10

its motion for summary judgment on September 1, 2011, and noticed four depositions of EEOC

11

claimants and witnesses on six days later. On September 16, 2011, the EEOC issued its first

12

interrogatories and noticed depositions of Dillard’s 30(b)(6) designee and the manager of its El Centro

13

store. Discovery is set to close in this matter on January 3, 2012.

14
15

The hearing on Dillard’s motion for summary judgment is currently scheduled for October 17,
2011. Under Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, the EEOC’s opposition is due on or before October 3, 2011.

16
17

LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is properly granted when no genuine and disputed issues of material fact

18

remain, and when, viewing the evidence most favorably to the non-moving party, the movant is clearly

19

entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,

20

322–23 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact exists if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable

21

jury to return a verdict for the non-moving party. Miller v. Glenn Miller Prod., Inc., 454 F.3d 975, 987

22

(9th Cir. 2006).

23

The moving party bears the burden of showing that the absence of a genuine issue of material

24

fact with respect to an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim, or to a defense on which the

25

nonmoving party will bear the burden of persuasion at trial. Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz

26

Cos. Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). When the nonmoving party would bear the burden of

27

proof at trial, the moving party may satisfy its burden on summary judgment by simply pointing out to

28

the Court an absence of evidence from the nonmoving party. Miller, 454 F.3d at 987. The Court must
2

1

draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Hernandez v. Spacelabs Med. Inc.,

2

343 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 2000).

3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) provides that the court may deny or continue a motion

4

for summary judgment “[i]f a party opposing the motion shows by affidavit that, for specified reasons,

5

it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition.” The requesting party must show that (1) it

6

has set forth in affidavit form the specific facts it hopes to elicit from further discovery, (2) the facts

7

sought exist and (3) the sought-after facts are essential to oppose summary judgment. Family Home &

8

Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp., 525 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2008). District courts

9

should grant a Rule 56(d) motion “fairly freely” where a summary judgment motion is filed before a

10

party has had a realistic opportunity to pursue discovery relevant to its theory of the case. Burlington

11

Northern Santa Fe R. Co. v. Assinboine and Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck Reservation, 323 F.3d 767, 773

12

(9th Cir. 2003).

13

DISCUSSION

14

The EEOC contends that it cannot adequately respond to Dillard’s summary judgment motion

15

without the time necessary to complete discovery. Specifically, the EEOC argues it needs to complete

16

additional discovery related to the specific contours of Dillard’s policies and the actual implementation

17

of those policies at Dillard’s El Centro store. The EEOC argues its scheduled depositions of Dillard’s

18

Rule 30(b)(6) representatives and the manager of its El Centro store, as well as interrogatories

19

regarding individuals affected by Dillard’s policies, will result in evidence crucial to opposing Dillard’s

20

summary judgment motion. [See generally Decl. of EEOC Trial Attorney Thomas Lepak, Doc. No.

21

59-2.] Dillard’s argues the EEOC has failed to show the discovery sought is relevant to its theory of

22

the case, and that the EEOC has not diligently pursued discovery up to this point in the litigation.

23

The EEOC has set forth the facts it hopes to elicit and shown that those facts exist and are

24

essential to its opposition to Dillard’s motion for summary judgment. See Family Home & Fin. Ctr.,

25

525 F.3d at 827. Moreover, given the parties’ late start on discovery due to settlement negotiations,

26

and that, per the Court’s scheduling order, discovery is not set to close until January 3, 2012, the Court

27

does not find that the EEOC has pursued discovery in a dilatory manner. Thus, the Court GRANTS

28
3

1

the EEOC’s Rule 56(d) motion and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Dillard’s motion for

2

summary judgment.

3
4

CONCLUSION
The EEOC’s Rule 56(d) motion is GRANTED. [Doc. No. 59.] Accordingly, Dillard’s motion

5

for summary judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to re-noticing on January 3, 2012, or

6

thereafter. [Doc. No. 53.]

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10
11

DATED: 9/28/11

_______________________________
IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge
United States District Court

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4