U. S. Bank National Association v. Oakbrook Apartments LLC

Filing 67

RULING granting 62 Motion for Relief under Rule 56(d), FRCP filed by defendant Oakbrook Apartments LLC. Plaintiffs shall serve responses by 1/14/2015. Defendant shall have until 1/30/2015 to file a supplemental response to the plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 12/17/2014. (JDL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
ETC.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NUMBER 14-340-SCR

OAKBROOK APARTMENTS LLC
RULING ON MOTION FOR RELIEF UNDER RULE 56(d)
Before the court is a Motion for Relief under Rule 56(d) filed
by defendant Oakbrook Apartments LLC.

Record document number 62.

Plaintiff U.S. Bank national Association, as Trustee, as successor
in interest to Bank of America, National Association, as successor
by merger to LaSalle Bank National Association, for the registered
holders of LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2006-C6, Commercial
Mortgage

Pass-Through

Certificates,

Series

2006-C6,

filed

an

opposition.1
Under Rule 56(d), Fed.R.Civ.P., if a party opposing a summary
judgment
specified

motion

shows

reasons,

it

by

affidavit

cannot

present

or

declaration

facts

that

essential

to

for
its

opposition, the court may defer considering the motion or deny it,
allow

time

to

obtain

affidavits

or

declarations

or

to

take

discovery, or issue any other appropriate order.
Plaintiff argued that the defendant is not entitled to relief
under Rule 56(d). Plaintiff pointed out that the defendant waited
1

Record document number 63.

until November 12, 2014 to serve its written discovery requests,
which made the responses due after the December 1, 2014 fact
deadline.2

discovery

Because

the

defendant

never

sought

an

extension of this deadline, the plaintiff argued that the discovery
requests were untimely and cannot be a basis to defer ruling on the
summary judgment motion.

Plaintiff also argued that the defendant

should not be granted a delay which would, in effect, extend the
fact discovery deadline because there is no good cause to do so the defendant was not diligent in beginning and pursuing its
discovery.

Plaintiff maintained that the defendant acted at its

own risk by not moving forward with its discovery even while the
parties were attempting to negotiate a settlement.
Plaintiff’s arguments, although supported by the Scheduling
Order, are ultimately unpersuasive essentially for the reasons
explained by the defendant.

Notably, the Joint Motion to Extend

Deadline for Filing Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment

was

premised

on

preserving

both

party

and

judicial

resources while the parties were diligently working to negotiate a
settlement agreement.3 The argument that the defendant should have
nonetheless pursued written discovery while the negotiations were

2

Record document number 47, Scheduling Order, p.1, item A;
record document number 62-3, Requests for Admissions of Fact,
Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents.
Therefore, the plaintiff’s discovery responses were due by December
12, 2014.
3

Record document number 53, ¶¶ 3, 4.
2

ongoing is contrary to the parties’ joint representation to the
court in the motion to extend the defendant’s summary judgment
opposition deadline.
Plaintiff is seeking to recover more than $26 million from the
defendant and does not dispute that the discovery seeks relevant
admissions, information and documents.

Although the defendant was

late in serving its discovery requests, the delay was consistent
with efforts to reach a settlement, the discovery requests were
served within two weeks after the parties’ efforts to resolve the
case ended, and the delay was not so egregious that the defendant
should be denied a fair opportunity to obtain information needed to
respond to the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion.
Therefore, the ruling on the summary judgment motion will be
deferred to allow the defendant time to obtain and review the
plaintiff’s discovery responses and file a supplemental opposition
to the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion.

Plaintiff will be

required to provide the defendant with its responses to the
discovery requests by January 14, 2015.

Defendant will be allowed

until January 30, 2015 to file a supplemental opposition to the
plaintiff’s summary judgment motion.
Accordingly,

the

Motion

for

Relief

under

Rule

56(d),

Fed.R.Civ.P. filed by defendant Oakbrook Apartments LLC is granted.
Plaintiff shall serve its responses to the defendant’s Requests for
Admissions of Fact, Interrogatories and Requests for Production of

3

Documents, by January 14, 2015. Defendant shall have until January
30, 2015 to file a supplemental response to the plaintiff’s Motion
for Summary Judgment.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, December 17, 2014.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4