Ross v. O'Hara

Filing 22

OPINION AND ORDER The Motion for Extension of Time or to Stay Proceedingson Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, DE 19 , is DENIED. The plaintiff is GRANTED 21 days to respond to the motion for summary judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew P Rodovich on 10/22/18. (kjp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
ANGELA ELVITA ROSS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JONATHAN R. O’HARA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:18-cv-118

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the Motion for Extension of Time or to Stay
Proceedings on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 19] filed by the plaintiff, Angela
Elvita Ross, on October 15, 2018. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
Background
The parties attended the Rule 16 Preliminary Pretrial Conference on July 6, 2018. The
court set a deadline for the defendant, Jonathan R. O’Hara, to file a motion for judgment on the
pleadings or a motion for recusal by September 28, 2018. On September 29, 2018, O’Hara filed
the Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 18], along with an affidavit in support of the motion for
summary judgment.
On October 15, 2018, Ross filed this motion requesting that the court stay the
proceedings, or in the alternative, extend the deadline for her to respond to the motion for
summary judgment until the conclusion of discovery and to set a pretrial scheduling conference.
Ross has indicated that she has not had the opportunity to conduct discovery. Therefore, she
contends that O’Hara’s motion for summary judgment is premature. O’Hara filed a response in
opposition on October 15, 2018, and Ross filed a reply on October 16, 2018.

Discussion
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) states, “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.” In order to succeed
on a Rule 56(d) motion, the plaintiff must identify the specific evidence which would create a
genuine issue of fact. American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League, 538 F.3d 736, 740
(7th Cir. 2008) (overturned on other grounds). “Summary judgment should not be entered ‘until
the party opposing the motion has had a fair opportunity to conduct such discovery as may be
necessary to meet the factual basis for the motion.’” Chalimoniuk v. Interstate Brands
Corporation, 172 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 1057-58 (S.D. Ind. 2001) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 326, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986)). However, a Rule 56(d) motion is
not meant to allow a party to block summary judgment simply by offering generalities about the
need for further discovery. Woods v. City of Chicago, 234 F.3d 979, 990-91 (7th Cir. 2001).
A court may deny a Rule 56(d) motion because the requesting party fails to identify with
specificity the evidence it may have obtained with the additional discovery that would create a
genuine issue of material fact. See American Needle Inc., 538 F.3d at 740 (affirming district
court’s denial of Rule 56(d) motion). In short, the moving party must show: (1) good cause for
the discovery delays; (2) the specific discovery that is necessary to prepare a response to the
motion for summary judgment; and (3) that the additional discovery will give rise to a genuine
issue of material fact. Bernegger v. Gray & Associates LLP, 2009 WL 3148723, *3 (E.D. Wis.
2009).

2

In support of his motion for summary judgment, O’Hara filed a factual affidavit. Ross
has indicated she must have the opportunity to explore the matters contained in the affidavit,
specifically paragraphs 5, 6, 12, and 13, through discovery. However, Ross has failed to show
the specific discovery that she intends to conduct and how it will impact her ability to respond to
the pending motion for summary judgment. She has not given the court any indication on how
the proposed discovery would create a genuine issue of material fact. Ross indicated that she
intended to depose O’Hara, but she has not indicated what information she intends to illicit.
Ross’s motion is void of any reason why the deposition is necessary, and she has failed to satisfy
her burden.
At the Rule 16 conference, the court declined to set a discovery schedule because it was
determined that a legal issue was controlling and that discovery might not be required. This
motion is a thinly veiled attempt to circumvent the court’s refusal to set a discovery schedule.
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Extension of Time or to Stay Proceedings
on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 19] is DENIED. The plaintiff is GRANTED
21 days to respond to the motion for summary judgment.
ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2018.
/s/ Andrew P. Rodovich
United States Magistrate Judge

3