Boden v. Crop Production Services, Inc.

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. Boden's Rule 56(d) Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 36 ) is GRANTED. The briefing on Nutrien's Motion for Summary Judgment is stayed until further notice. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (alw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
TOMMY “SHANE” BODEN

Case No. 4:18-cv-00266-DCN

Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC.,
formerly known as CROP
PRODUCTION SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant.
I. INTRODUCTION
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Tommy “Shane” Boden’s Rule 56(d) Motion
to Extend Time to Respond to Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 36. Having reviewed
the record and briefs, the Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately
presented. Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court
finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument, the
Court will decide the Motion without oral argument. Dist. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1)(B).
II. BACKGROUND
On September 13, 2019, the Court and the parties’ respective attorneys participated
in an informal discovery dispute teleconference pursuant to local rules. The dispute was
over Boden’s request for discovery concerning Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc.’s (“Nutrien”)

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER – 1

alleged discrimination against him because of his diabetes. As this conference did not result
in a resolution, the parties agreed to address the issue through motion practice. The Court
subsequently set an expedited briefing schedule for Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. 29),
which Boden filed on September 25, 2019.
After the conference, Boden took the depositions of two witnesses and Nutrien’s
30(b)(6) representative, with the final deposition concluding on September 27, 2019. The
following business day, Nutrien filed its Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 31), despite
the pending Motion to Compel and the recently taken depositions. In response, on October
8, 2019, Boden filed this motion seeking to delay the current briefing schedule for
Nutrien’s Motion for Summary Judgment until the Court issues its decision on Boden’s
Motion to Compel.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), the nonmovant to a motion for
summary judgment may request the Court to order a continuance on the motion. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(d). For the Court to grant the continuance,“[t]he requesting party must show: (1)
it has set forth in affidavit form the specific facts it hopes to elicit from further discovery;
(2) the facts sought exist; and (3) the sought-after facts are essential to oppose summary
judgment.” Family Home and Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 525 F.3d
822, 827 (9th Cir. 2008). In ruling on a 56(d) motion, a district court considers whether the
movant had sufficient opportunity to conduct discovery, whether the movant was diligent,
whether the information sought is based on mere speculation, and whether allowing
additional discovery would preclude summary judgment. Martinez v. Columbia
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER – 2

Sportswear USA Corp., 553 Fed. Appx. 760, 761 (9th Cir. 2014).
IV. ANALYSIS
To begin, the Court notes that all the parties filed their respective motions,
mentioned above, in a timely manner. Nutrien filed its Motion for Summary Judgment in
compliance with Rule 56 and the Court’s Amended Case Management Order (Dkt. 27).
Boden appropriately filed his Motion to Compel, pursuant to the informal discovery dispute
conference, before the close of discovery. Boden also filed his Rule 56(d) Motion for an
Extension of Time just one week after Nutrien filed its Motion for Summary Judgment.
The underlying dispute here, then, is not so much the procedural aspect of these filings as
it is their practicality.
After reviewing the briefing on these three motions, the Court can easily summarize
the cause of this situation: Boden believes that information about his diabetes and his CDL
is necessary for his case and essential to oppose Nutrien’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
while Nutrien thinks this information is inadmissible. Nutrien relies on this position in
opposing this current motion. Because the diabetes and CDL information is inadmissible,
it argues, Boden cannot meet his burden under Rule 56(d) and the Court should not grant
the extension.
The Court notes the unique situation this particular Rule 56(d) motion presents. A
party typically makes a Rule 56(d) motion when it feels it is missing discovery. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(d). Before Boden filed this motion, the parties had already engaged in an
informal discovery dispute conference and Boden had filed a discovery motion pursuant to
that conference. In other words, the proper vehicle to address the underlying discovery
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER – 3

dispute is through Boden’s Motion to Compel. The purpose of this motion, to speak bluntly,
is to decide if Boden should be rushed into preparing a potentially inadequate defense due
to the Court’s timing in ruling on his Motion to Compel.
As the substance of the parties’ arguments regarding this discovery dispute is in the
briefing on the Motion to Compel, that is where the Court will address them. Here, the
Court need only decide if (1) Boden has set forth in affidavit form the specific facts he
hopes to elicit from further discovery; (2) the facts sought exist; and (3) the sought-after
facts are essential to oppose summary judgment. See Family Home, 525 F.3d at 827.
Without addressing the admissibility of these facts, after reviewing the briefing on this
motion and considering the Martinez factors, the Court finds that Boden has met all three
elements here.
Additionally, this decision provides practical fairness to both parties. Granting this
motion to extend time does not prejudice Nutrien at all as it does not affect the Court’s
decision on either Nutrien’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Boden’s Motion to Compel.
Further, the Court must provide Boden an opportunity to muster an appropriate defense to
Nutrien’s Motion for Summary Judgment. It would be unfair to Boden to limit his ability
to respond based on a delay in a separate motion that he has no control over.
///
///
///
///
///
///

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER – 4

V. ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Boden’s Rule 56(d) Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Motion for
Summary Judgment (Dkt. 36) is GRANTED. The briefing on Nutrien’s
Motion for Summary Judgment is stayed until further notice. 

DATED: October 21, 2019

_________________________
David C. Nye
Chief U.S. District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER – 5