Bailey et al v. Verso Corporation

Filing 36

ORDER AND ENTRY: (1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS RULE 56(d) MOTION; (2) DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION (DOC. 29) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING; (3) SETTING A BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS; AND (4) VACATING THE JULY 5, 2018 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 7/3/2018. (dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
CLIFFORD BAILEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 3:17-cv-332

vs.
VERSO CORPORATION,

Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman
(Consent Case)

Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER AND ENTRY: (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S RULE 56(d) MOTION; (2)
DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION (DOC. 29) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING; (3) SETTING A
BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS; AND (4) VACATING THE JULY 5, 2018 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE
______________________________________________________________________________
This civil case is before the Court following a status conference with the parties on June
11, 2018. Doc. 32. At that time, pending before the Court, were two separate motions: (1)
Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (doc. 19); and (2) Plaintiffs’ memorandum in
opposition/motion for summary judgment (doc. 29).
During the status conference with the Court on June 11, 2018, Defendant’s attorneys
expressed their concern that Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was premature; that
discovery was required to respond to the motion for summary judgment; and that Plaintiffs’ action
is an attempt to submit to the Court matters outside the pleadings in opposing the Rule 12(c)
motion. Following the status conference on June 11, 2018, Defendants moved for relief under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) to either strike or defer consideration of Plaintiffs’ motion for summary
judgment. Doc. 34.

The undersigned finds that Plaintiffs have appropriately filed a motion for summary
judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b) (stating that, “[u]nless a different time is set by local rule or
the court orders otherwise, a party may file a motion for summary judgment at any time until 30
days after the close of all discovery”). Nevertheless, in an effort to efficiently manage the docket,
the Court finds it appropriate to GRANT Defendant’s Rule 56(d) motion (doc. 34) because
discovery has been stayed in this case to date, thus denying Defendant an opportunity for
discovery. Accordingly, at this time, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING following full briefing and a decision on Defendant’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Plaintiffs are ORDERED to separately file a memorandum in opposition to Defendant’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings with 14 days from the entry of this Order. In doing so,
Plaintiffs shall be mindful that, aside from a few exceptions, the Court’s review of a Rule 12(c)
motion is limited to the allegations pled in the complaint. If Plaintiffs contend that matters outside
the pleadings are appropriate for the Court to consider in deciding the Rule 12(c) motion, Plaintiffs
shall cite appropriate authority in that regard. Defendants shall have 14 days from the filing of
Plaintiffs’ separate memorandum in opposition to file their reply in support of the motion for
judgment on the pleadings.
The telephone status conference set for July 5, 2018 is VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

July 3, 2018

s/ Michael J. Newman
Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge

2