Kemp et al v. The Lamar Company, LLC et al

Filing 50

ORDER granting 48 Motion for Rule 56(d) Relief Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 5/21/2012 (PL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION
Jerry L. Kemp, as Trustee of the JERRY L. KEMP
FAMILY TRUST (the successor in interest to any real property
Owned by R.L. Kemp, Jr.); Carol Lynn Kemp Simpson, as
Trustee of the KAILEY LAUREN KEMP TRUST,
CHELSEA EMERALD KEMP TRUST, ROBERT
LOGAN KEMP TRUST, and KEVIN LEE KEMP, JR. TRUST; and
The Trustees of the KEMP TRUST,
being a Trust created U/A dated January 15, 1990
PLAINTIFFS
V.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-cv-10-DCB-JMR

THE LAMAR COMPANY, LLC;
TLC PROPERTIES, INC;
& JOHN DOES 1, 2 and 3

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Before the Court are Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment [docket entry no. 42] and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Rule
56(d) Relief or in the alternative Motion for Extension of Time
[docket entry no. 48]. Having carefully considered the Motions,
applicable statutory and case law, and being otherwise fully
advised in the premises, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Rule 56(d) Relief is well-taken and should be granted.
“[I]f a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for
specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its
opposition [to summary judgment], the court may . . . allow time to
obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(d). Rule 56(d) motions “are genuinely favored and should
be liberally granted.” King v. Freedom Life Ins. Co. of Am., 2011
WL 3876979, at *3 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 31, 2011) (citation omitted).

Plaintiffs’ attorney avers that additional time for discovery is
necessary to uncover certain facts dispositive to the Defendants’
Motion. Hicks Affidavit, docket entry no. 48-1. Having considered
the reasons for his request, the Court agrees that the Plaintiff
should be allowed to conduct additional discovery strictly related
to

whether

information

the

Defendants

before

the

produced

expiration

accurate

of

the

monthly

repurchase

rental
option.

Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs until June 8, 2012, to
conduct this discovery and respond to the Defendants’ Renewed
Motion for Summary Judgment. The Defendants will then have seven
days to respond.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Rule 56(d)
Relief or in the alternative Motion for Extension of Time
[docket entry no. 48] is GRANTED. Plaintiffs have until June
8, 2012, to conduct discovery and respond to the Defendants’
Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment.
SO ORDERED this the 21st day of May, 2012.

/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2