National Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. Lindemann et al

Filing 103

ORDER denying 95 Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice with leave to re-file at a later date. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 1/26/16. (lmp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
NATIONAL FIRE AND MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
LEE LINDEMANN, Special Administrator
of the Estate of SUE ANN LINDEMANN, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 3:15-cv-910-DRH-DGW
Order

HERNDON, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff National Fire and Marine
Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 95). Defendants have
responded and oppose the motion as premature, or in the alternative, they
request the Court to defer consideration of plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment pursuant to FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 56(d) (Docs. 100 &
101). The Court agrees with the defendants.
Rule 56(d) allows a nonmoving party to submit an affidavit or declaration
requesting the court to defer considering or deny a summary judgment motion “in
order to allow for appropriate discovery to address matters raised by the
[summary judgment] motion. Spierer v. Rossman, 798 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 2015).
Rule 56(d) provides:

Page 1 of 3

“When Facts Are Unavailable to the Nonmovant. If a nonmovant shows
by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present
facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may:
(1) defer considering the motion or deny it;
(2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take
discovery; or
(3) issue any other appropriate order.”
As a result, “Rule 56 permits a district court to delay consideration of a summary
judgment motion and order additional discovery before ruling if the non-movant
demonstrates that “it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d). Sterk v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, 770 F.3d 618, 62728 (7th Cir. 2014). Rule 56(d) places the burden on the summary judgment nonmovant to state the reasons why it cannot adequately respond to the summary
judgment motion without further discovery. Id. at 628, quoting Deere & Co. v.
Ohio Gear, 462 F.3d 701, 706 (7th Cir. 2006).
Based a review of the pleadings, Defendants have made a sufficient showing
of good cause for their inability to respond to National Fire and Marine Insurance
Company’s motion at this time. Magistrate Judge Wilkerson directed that initial
written discovery be served on the opposing parties no later than December 18,
2016, with depositions to be taken by March 1, 2016 (Doc. 98). The Scheduling
Order went on to state that discovery shall be completed by August 1, 2016.
Plaintiff filed the pending motion on December 11, 2015, and tendered its
interrogatories and requests for production one week later (Docs. 100 & 101). As
a result, defendants contend that issues of material fact clearly remain in this
case, and more importantly, National Fire and Marine Insurance Company is in

Page 2 of 3

possession of information and documents pertaining to the issues addressed in
the motion for summary judgment. Therefore, defendants argue that summary
judgment is improper at this stage, given the fact that they “cannot present all
facts essential to justify its opposition of National Fire’s Motion for Summary
Judgment because material pertaining to such facts is in the possession of
National Fire, not [defendants]” (Docs. 100 & 101).
The Court believes that at this time, the nonmoving parties have insufficient
facts to respond to the summary judgment motion. Accordingly, the Court
DENIES at this time with leave to re-file plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 95). A summary judgment motion filed after the benefit of
discovery would be more useful for the Court to efficiently decide whether
summary judgment is warranted in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Digitally signed
by Judge David
R. Herndon
Date: 2016.01.26
06:56:22 -06'00'

Signed this 26th day of January, 2016

United States District Court Judge

Page 3 of 3