DANTZLER INC v. HUBERT MOORE LUMBER COMPANY INC et al

Filing 74

ORDER denying 68 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 73 Rule 56(d) Motion to Delay Ruling. Ordered by U.S. District Judge HUGH LAWSON on 4/1/2015. (aks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION

DANTZLER, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.

Civil Action No. 7:13-CV-56 (HL)

JOY WEBSTER, as Chapter 7
Trustee
of
HUBER
MOORE
LUMBER COMPANY, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Dupont Pine Products, LLC’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 68) and Plaintiff Dantzler, Inc.’s motion (Doc. 73)
requesting that the Court either deny Defendant’s motion for summary judgment
or delay ruling on the motion. Upon consideration, the Court grants Plaintiff’s
motion and denies Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
This case has a lengthy and complicated procedural history. Plaintiff
initiated the action on April 26, 2013. (Doc. 1). The parties prepared, and the
Court entered, a Joint Scheduling and Discovery Report on June 28, 2013. (Doc.
31). Then, a few months later, on October 11, 2013, Defendant Hubert Moore
Lumber Company, Inc. (“Hubert Moore Lumber Company”) filed a Suggestion of
Bankruptcy. (Doc. 52). The Court entered an Order staying the case as to Hubert
Moore Lumber Company on October 17, 2013 (Doc. 52), and later extended the

stay to include all parties. (Doc. 56). The Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District
of Georgia granted relief from the stay on December 17, 2014. The Court
thereafter instructed the parties to confer and to submit a status report regarding
how the parties collectively wished to proceed. (Doc. 62). The parties complied
and informed the Court that an additional period of time was required to
complete discovery and prepare the case for trial. (Doc. 63).
All parties involved in this litigation held a Rule 26(f) conference on
February 20, 2015. That same date, they filed an Amended Joint Scheduling and
Discovery Report. (Doc. 65). In pertinent part, the discovery order provides that
initial disclosures will be made by no later than March 6, 2015; the time for
discovery shall expire on August 19, 2015; and all dispositive motion shall be
filed on or before October 2, 2015.
On March 6, 2015, the same day the parties agreed initial disclosures
would be made, Defendant Dupont Pine Products, Inc. filed its Motion for
Summary Judgment. (Doc. 68). The Court finds Defendant’s motion to be
premature. The general rule in this circuit is that a court should not consider a
motion for summary judgment “until the party opposing the motion has had an
adequate opportunity for discovery.” Snook v. Trust Co. of Ga. Bank, N.A., 869
F.2d 865, 870 (11th Cir. 1988). More specifically,

2

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.
Id. When a court is presented with the question of whether a party has had an
appropriate amount of time in which to engage in discovery so that the party may
adequately respond to a motion for summary judgment, Federal Rule 56(d)
provides several remedies. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d). The court may (1) delay
consideration of the motion or deny it; (2) extend additional time to obtain
affidavits or other discovery; or (3) enter an appropriate order. Id.
Considering the history of this case and the posture in which the case
currently stands, the Court finds it appropriate to grant Plaintiff’s motion and to
deny Defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment. Once the parties have
had the opportunity to engage in meaningful discovery, Defendant may renew its
motion should it so choose.
SO ORDERED, this the 1st day of April, 2015.
s/ Hugh Lawson_______________
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE
aks

3