Keating et al v. Jastremski et al

Filing 180

ORDER denying without Prejudice 168 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 177 Ex Parte Application. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 6/23/2017. (sjt)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEREMY L. KEATING et al., Case No.: 3:15-cv-57-L-AGS Plaintiffs, 12 13 v. 14 ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION [DOC. NO. 177] AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. NO. 168] JOHN A. JASTREMSKI et al., 15 16 Defendants; AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. 17 18 Pending before the Court is Ex Parte Application to Take Counter-Defendants' 19 Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Motion for Partial Summary 20 Judgment off Calendar Until Such Time the Magistrate Hears TRG's Request for an 21 Order Show Cause Re: Contempt for Failure to Comply with Discovery Orders ("Ex 22 Parte Application") filed by Defendant and Counterclaimant The Retirement Group, LLC 23 ("TRG"). Counter-defendants Sean Sullivan, Lloyd Silvers, Steven Dalton and Ardent 24 Retirement Planning, LLC (collectively "Ardent"), filed an opposition, and TRG replied. 25 TRG argues it cannot fully brief its opposition to Ardent's pending summary 26 judgment motion because Ardent has failed to produce relevant documents even after the 27 Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler granted TRG's motion to compel (doc. no. 156). 28 Pending before Judge Schopler is TRG's motion for an order to show cause why Ardent 1 3:15-cv-57-L-AGS 1 should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the order granting motion to 2 compel (doc. no. 167). TRG claims that while it could file an opposition to Ardent's 3 summary judgment motion without production of additional documents, the opposition 4 would not be complete, and TRG would request additional time to supplement its 5 opposition brief after reviewing the additional documents. 6 Ardent counters that granting TRG's Ex Parte Application is not warranted by 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), because TRG admitted that it could file an 8 opposition without the additional documents, and accuses TRG of failing to comply with 9 TRG's discovery. The Ex Parte Application is not based on Rule 56(d). Further, TRG's 10 alleged discovery violations, which also are the subject of orders and pending motions 11 before Judge Schopler, are irrelevant to the Ex Parte Application, as Ardent does not 12 contend that any documents TRG has failed to produce are necessary to support Ardent's 13 motion. Finally, Ardent does not contend that it would be prejudiced, if TRG's Ex Parte 14 Application were granted. 15 Rule 56 provides for discretion to assure the interests of justice are not overlooked 16 in deciding summary judgment motions. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(e) (if a party is 17 unable to properly address a factual assertion, the court may grant an opportunity to do so 18 or "issue any other appropriate order"). The interests of justice and judicial efficiency are 19 best served if the parties and Judge Schopler are given an opportunity to resolve 20 discovery issues before TRG is required to file its opposition. 21 Accordingly, TRG's Ex Parte Application [doc. no. 177] is GRANTED. Ardent's 22 summary judgment motion [doc. no. 168] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Ardent 23 may refile its motion after it has complied with Judge Schopler's orders regarding TRG's 24 requests for discovery. This Order does not modify any Federal Rules of Civil 25 ///// 26 27 28 2 3:15-cv-57-L-AGS 1 Procedure, Civil Local Rules or Judge Schopler's orders regarding the time to file 2 summary judgment motions. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: June 23, 2017 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 3:15-cv-57-L-AGS

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?