United States of America v. Kaniadakis

Filing 36

ORDER: Plaintiff United States of America's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 30 ) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as prematurely asserted. The United States may move for summary judgment after discovery has been completed and before the dispositive motions deadline of November 9, 2017. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/27/2017. (DMD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:17-cv-1269-T-33TGW

STEVEN J. KANIADAKIS,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to the United
States of America’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 30),
filed on September 15, 2017. Plaintiff Steven J. Kaniadakis
responded on September 26, 2017. (Doc. # 35). For the reasons
that

follow,

the

Motion

is

denied

without

prejudice

as

prematurely asserted.
I.

Background
On May 26, 2017, the United States initiated this default

of student loan action against pro se Defendant Steven J.
Kaniadakis.

(Doc.

#

1).

According

to

the

Complaint,

Kaniadakis is indebted to the United States in the total
amount of $443,170.01 for the principal and interest accrued
for

various

student

loans.

(Id.

at

1-2;

Doc.

#

1-2).

Kaniadakis filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on June

1

27, 2017, (Doc. # 11), which the Court denied on July 13,
2017. (Doc. # 15). Subsequently, Kaniadakis filed his Answer
on July 31, 2017. (Doc. # 17).
On June 29, 2017, the Court entered its Case Management
and Scheduling Order (Doc. # 12), setting a discovery deadline
of August 28, 2017.

But

Kaniadakis moved to extend the

discovery period by sixty days on August 17, 2017, arguing
that further discovery was necessary regarding his payment
history. (Doc. # 21). After the United States indicated that
it did not oppose the requested extension (Doc. # 23), the
Court granted Kaniadakis’s motion, extended the discovery
deadline to October 27, 2017, and entered an Amended Case
Management and Scheduling Order. (Doc. ## 24, 25).
On August 24, 2017, Kaniadakis filed a motion to produce,
seeking discovery of various documents related to, among
other things, his payment history and communications with
loan servicers. (Doc. # 26). United States Magistrate Judge
Thomas G. Wilson denied the motion without prejudice for
failure to comply with Local Rules 3.01(a) and 3.04(a). (Doc.
# 27).
Then, on September 15, 2017, the United States filed its
Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 30). After the Motion
was filed, Kaniadakis filed a motion to compel (Doc. # 31)
2

and motion for production and to compel (Doc. # 32) on
September 18, 2017. In the motion to compel, Kaniadakis “moves
that

this

Court

DEN[Y]

PLAINTIFF’S

Motion

for

Summary

Judgment” because the discovery deadline was extended to
October 27, 2017 — over a month after the United States filed
its Motion. (Doc. # 31 at 3). He argues that the United
States’ Motion is “evidently premature” and that the United
States is seeking “essentially a rush to judgment.” (Id.).
Judge Wilson denied Kaniadakis’s motions without prejudice
for failure to comply with the Local Rules on September 19,
2017. (Doc. ## 33, 34).
Then, on September 26, 2017, Kaniadakis filed a response
in opposition to the United States’ Motion. (Doc. # 35). In
his response, Kaniadakis makes numerous arguments for why the
Motion should be denied. Most importantly, Kaniadakis notes
that he “requested Plaintiff produce documentation discovery.
They did not.” (Doc. # 35 at 6). He asserts that he has
requested discovery related to his payment history and his
affirmative defense of discharge, but has not received these
documents from the United States. (Id. at 16-19).
Because the Court finds that the Motion for Summary
Judgment

is

premature,

the

prejudice.
3

Motion

is

denied

without

II.

Analysis
Summary

judgment

is

appropriate

if

the

pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(a). As stated in Blumel v. Mylander, 919 F. Supp.
423, 428 (M.D. Fla. 1996), Rule 56 “implies [that] district
courts should not grant summary judgment until the non-movant
has had an adequate opportunity for discovery.”

Furthermore,

the Eleventh Circuit has determined that “summary judgment may
only be decided upon an adequate record.” Snook v. Trust Co.
of Ga. Bank, 859 F.2d 865, 870 (11th Cir. 1988).
The Eleventh Circuit expounded:
[S]ummary judgment should not be granted until the
party opposing the motion has had an adequate
opportunity for discovery.
The party opposing a
motion for summary judgment has a right to
challenge
the
affidavits
and
other
factual
materials submitted in support of the motion by
conducting sufficient discovery so as to enable him
to determine whether he can furnish opposing
affidavits. If the documents or other discovery
sought would be relevant to the issues presented by
the motion for summary judgment, the opposing party
should be allowed the opportunity to utilize the
discovery process to gain access to the requested
materials.
Generally
summary
judgment
is
inappropriate when the party opposing the motion
has been unable to obtain responses to his
discovery requests.
4

Id. at 870 (internal citations omitted).
Kaniadakis points out that he has not had a meaningful
opportunity to develop the facts through discovery. In his
motion to compel, Kaniadakis notes the United States has not
yet provided any requested discovery to him and argues that
granting

summary

judgment

would

be

“premature”

and

“essentially a rush to judgment.” (Doc. # 31 at 3). Kaniadakis
reiterates in his response to the Motion for Summary Judgment
that the United States has not yet provided him discovery:
“Defendant

requested

Plaintiff

produce

documentation

discovery. They did not.” (Doc. # 35 at 6). The October 27,
2017, discovery deadline set by the Court’s Amended Case
Management and Scheduling Order has yet to expire. See (Doc.
# 25). And Kaniadakis’s September 18 motions to compel,
although they were denied without prejudice, indicate that
Kaniadakis is still actively seeking discovery to support his
defense. (Doc. ## 31, 32).
Upon due consideration, the Court determines that the
United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied
as premature. The court reached a similar result in Blumel,
919 F. Supp. at 423. There, the plaintiff filed a motion for
summary judgment “when discovery just began.” Id. at 429.
The court denied the motion for summary judgment as “blatantly
5

premature” after finding that “there has been inadequate time
for discovery.” Id. The court explained, “If the Court were
to rule on the merits of [the plaintiff’s] motion, such ruling
would

frustrate

the

[defendants’]

right

to

factually

investigate.” Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d)(providing
for

discovery

where

a

non-movant

cannot

present

facts

essential to justify its opposition to the summary judgment
motion); Royal Oak Enters., LLC v. Nature’s Grilling Prods.,
No. 1:10-cv-2494-JEC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133856, at *9
(N.D. Ga. Nov. 21, 2011)(“Depending on the evidence that is
developed during discovery, defendant may ultimately prevail
on its motion for summary judgment. However, at this stage in
the litigation, the motion is clearly premature.”).
The Court determines that the United States’ Motion for
Summary Judgment was prematurely filed. Therefore, in order
to allow the parties the opportunity to engage meaningfully
in discovery, the Court denies the Motion without prejudice.
The United States may move again for summary judgment after
completion of discovery and before the dispositive motions
deadline of November 9, 2017.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

6

Plaintiff United States of America’s Motion for Summary
Judgment

(Doc.

#

30)

is

DENIED

WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

as

prematurely asserted. The United States may move for summary
judgment after discovery has been completed and before the
dispositive motions deadline of November 9, 2017.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this
27th day of September, 2017.

7