Taylor v. Hughes

Filing 40

MEMORANDUM OPINION - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Petitioners motion for an extension of time to complete discovery pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 33.) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the stay imposed by this Courts prior order (Doc. 32.) is LIFTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the following briefing schedule shall apply to Respondents motion for summary judgment: 1. Petitioner shall file a brief in opposition to the motion, together with a counterstatemen t of material facts pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, on or before Monday, October 8, 2012. 2. Respondent shall be permitted to file a reply brief in further support of its motion for summary judgment within 14 days of the date on which Petitioners oppos ition brief is filed. 3. All briefs must comport with the requirements prescribed by Local Rule 7.8. 4. No additional briefing other than that provided for in this order shall be permitted without leave of court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on September 20, 2012. (kjn )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SCOTT W. TAYLOR, d/b/a
TAYLOR’S TRADING POST
Petitioner
v.
ALPHONSO HUGHES,
Director of Industry Operations,
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives,
Respondent

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 1:12-CV-138
(Judge Jones)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
I.

INTRODUCTION
Scott Taylor, who does business as Taylor’s Trading Post in Adams County,

Pennsylvania, brought this action to challenge the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives’ (“ATF”) revocation of his license to sell firearms pursuant
to the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 921-931, after finding that Taylor had willfully
committed over 10,000 violations of the Act over several years. ATF has moved for
summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims, and seeks entry of an order upholding the
revocation decision.
In response, the Petitioner has moved pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure for an extension of time to conduct discovery that he has

propounded upon the Respondent, apparently in an effort principally to learn about
ATF’s internal policies, procedures, and documents in the agency’s possession
regarding this and other unrelated investigations and revocation decisions.
Respondent has opposed the motion, arguing that it is overly burdensome and
irrelevant to the legal issues before the Court. Specifically, Respondent argues that
Petitioner’s proposed discovery is an improper effort to discover information that has
no bearing on the actual issue before the Court in this action, namely, whether
Petitioner violated the GCA, and whether he did so willfully.
Upon consideration, although we agree with Petitioner that in some cases
discovery may be warranted in actions challenging firearms license revocations, we
do not agree that the discovery Petitioner seeks in this case is necessary or appropriate
given the issues presented. We also do not find that Petitioner has accurately defined
the scope of the Court’s inquiry in these proceedings, and has based his discovery
request in part upon legally inaccurate assertions regarding the legal standards
governing our review of ATF’s decision. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow,
the motion will be denied and the parties will be directed to complete briefing on
Respondent’s pending summary judgment motion, which has been held in abeyance
pending resolution of Petitioner’s Rule 56(d) motion.

2

II.

BACKGROUND
On September 14, 2011, following inspections of Petitioner’s business

premises and records over a period of approximately 10 months, ATF investigators
found that Petitioner had committed more than 10,000 violations of the Gun Control
Act of 1968 (GCA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 921-931, and its regulations, 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.121
- 478.134, largely through repeated and longstanding failures to keep required records
regarding acquisitions and dispositions of firearms over multiple years. This
investigation also revealed that Taylor was in possession of a firearm with an
obliterated serial number, which is unlawful. (R. 42-47.)
As a result of these findings of violations of the GCA, ATF issued a Notice of
Revocation of License to Taylor on February 9, 2011. (R. 172-74.) The Notice
alleged that Taylor willfully violated the GCA and related regulations, and as a result
Taylor’s license to sell firearms was to be revoked on a date to be determined. (Id.)
Taylor requested a hearing on the Notice, and the revocation was stayed. On August
31, 2011, ATF held a hearing to consider the revocation. At that hearing, Taylor was
represented by counsel, and provided the opportunity to present evidence and crossexamine government witnesses. (R. 28-171) (hearing transcript.)
Following these proceedings, on November 21, 2011, Respondent issued a
Final Notice of Revocation to Taylor. (R. 15-27.) In that Final Notice, Respondent
3

concluded that the ATF inspection established that Taylor had willfully violated the
GCA, and his FFL was revoked accordingly. (Id.) Taylor requested that the effective
date of the FFL revocation be stayed pending review by a federal district court.
Respondent granted this request, and on January 24, 2012, Taylor commenced the
instant action, seeking de novo judicial review of ATF’s revocation of his federal
firearms license pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 923(f)(3). (Doc. 1.)
Respondent answered the petition for review on March 23, 2012, (Doc. 9.), and
thereafter on March 30, 2012, moved for summary judgment. (Doc. 14.) Rather than
respond substantively to the motion for summary judgment, on April 13, 2012,
Petitioner filed the motion that is presently before the Court, through which Petitioner
seeks an enlargement of time to complete discovery pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the grounds that such discovery is necessary for
Petitioner to fully and fairly challenge ATF’s revocation decision in these
proceedings. (Docs. 33, 34.)
In response to this motion, the Court stayed briefing on Respondent’s summary
judgment motion pending the resolution of Taylor’s discovery motion. (Doc. 32.)
Respondent filed a brief opposing the discovery motion on April 30, 2012, (Doc. 35.),
and Taylor filed a reply brief in further support of his motion on May 14, 2012. (Doc.
37.) Petitioner’s motion for an enlargement of time to conduct additional discovery
4

in aid of his efforts to overturn ATF’s revocation of his FFL is now fully briefed and
is ripe for disposition.
III.

DISCUSSION
A.

Summary Judgment and Motions for Discovery Pursuant to Rule
56(d)

Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows:
A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each
claim or defense – or the part of each claim or defense – on
which summary judgment is sought. The court shall grant
summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court should
state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the
motion.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). For purposes of Rule 56, a fact is material if proof of its
existence of nonexistence might affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable
substantive law. Haybarger v. Laurence Cnty. Adult Prob. & Parole, 667 F.3d 408,
412 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986)). For an issue to be genuine, “all that is required is that sufficient evidence
supporting the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve
the parties’ differing versions of the truth at trial.” Id. (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S.
at 248-49).

5

In appropriate instances, in response to a motion for summary judgment, the
nonmoving party may file a motion pursuant to Rule 56(d), which provides as
follows:
(d) 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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). In the declaration accompanying a motion filed pursuant to
Rule 56(d), the moving party must specify: “(1) what particular information is
sought; (2) how, if uncovered, it would preclude summary judgment; and (3) why it
has not previously been obtained.” Speth v. Goode, No. 95-0264, 2012 WL 3277105,
at *7 (D.N.J. Aug. 9, 2012) (citing Pa. Dept. of Pub. Welfare v. Sebelius, 674 F.3d
139, 157 (3d Cir. 2012) (further citations omitted); see also St. Surin v. Virgin Islands
Daily News, 21 F.3d 1309, 1313 (3d Cir. 1994).
If the party opposing summary judgment files an affidavit addressing these
requirements, the Third Circuit has held that a continuance for purposes of allowing
discovery should be liberally granted. See Doe v. Abington Friends Sch., 480 F.3d
252, 257 (3d Cir. 2007) (“If discovery is incomplete in any way material to a pending

6

summary judgment motion, a district court is justified in not granting [summary
judgment].”). However, a court may decline to delay ruling on a motion for summary
judgment, or may otherwise deny a Rule 56(d) motion, where the additional discovery
being sought by the nonmoving party would not preclude summary judgment.
Dowling v. City of Philadelphia, 855 F.2d 136, 140 (3d Cir. 1988). This is because
in order for a motion under Rule 56(d) to prevail, the movant must show as a
threshold matter (1) what particular information is being sought and (2) how, if
uncovered, the information would preclude summary judgment. Pa. Dept. of Pub.
Welfare v. Sebelius, 674 F.3d 139, 157 (3d Cir. 2012). It necessarily follows that
where the information sought would not preclude summary judgment, or would not
be relevant to the Court’s inquiry, the motion for discovery under Rule 56(d) may be
denied. Dowling, 855 F.2d at 140.
B.

Firearms License Revocations Under the GCA

With these procedural standards in mind, we turn to the relevant legal
guidelines governing actions brought to challenge revocations of federal firearms
licenses.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 923(d)(1), a federal firearms license is required for anyone
“engage[d] in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms.” A
licensed firearms dealer must maintain accurate and detailed “records of importation,
7

production, shipment, receipt, sale, or other disposition of firearms at his place of
business for such period, and in such form, as the Attorney General may by
regulations prescribe.” 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(1)(A).
Under § 923(e) of the GCA, “the Attorney General may, after notice and
opportunity for hearing, revoke any license issued under this section if the holder of
such license has willfully violated any provision of this chapter or any rule or
regulation prescribed by the Attorney General under this chapter.” 18 U.S.C. §
923(e). Courts have held that because the statute empowers the Attorney General to
revoke a Federal Firearms License upon the fining of a willful violation of “any”
provision of the GCA, a single violation of the GCA, or its rule and regulations, is
sufficient to revoke a firearms license. The General Store, Inc. v. Van Loan, 560 F.3d
920, 924 (9th Cir. 2009); Armalite, Inc. v. Lambert, 544 F.3d 644, 647 (6th Cir.
2008).
C.

Judicial Review of GCA Revocation Decisions

A licensee may challenge an ATF revocation by filing a petition for review
with the appropriate federal district court. 18 U.S.C. § 923(f)(3). The GCA provides
that review of a revocation decision is de novo. Id.; see also Shawano Gun & Loan,
LLC v. Hughes, 650 F.3d 1070, 1076 (7th Cir. 2011). The relevant statutory

8

provision provides for the process to be filed in an action challenging ATF’s
revocation of a federal firearms license:
If after a hearing held under paragraph (2) the Attorney
General decides not to reverse his decision to deny an
application or revoke a license, the Attorney General shall
give notice of his decision to the aggrieved party. The
aggrieved party may at any time within sixty days after the
date notice was given under this paragraph file a petition
with the United States district court for the district in which
he resides or has his principal place of business for a de
novo judicial review of such denial or revocation. In a
proceeding conducted under this subsection, the court may
consider any evidence submitted by the parties to the
proceeding whether or not such evidence was considered
at the hearing held under paragraph (2). If the court decides
that the Attorney General was not authorized to deny the
application or to revoke the license, the court shall order
the Attorney General to take such action as may be
necessary to comply with the judgment of the court.
18 U.S.C. § 923(f)(3). Thus, “[a] federal court reviewing such a revocation may grant
summary judgment ‘if no genuine issue of material fact exists about whether [the
licensee] willfully violated an applicable statutory or regulatory provision.’”
American Arms International v. Herbert, 563 F.3d 78, 82 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Armalite, Inc. v. Lambert, 544 F.3d 644, 647 (6th Cir. 2008)).
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has explained the district court’s wide
discretion in determining what evidence to consider in a proceeding challenging the
revocation of the federal firearms license:
9

In a proceeding brought under § 923(f)(3), the district court
may consider any evidence submitted by the parties to the
proceeding whether or not such evidence was considered
at the administrative hearing. The district court is afforded
discretion to receive evidence additional to that contained
in the administrative record “when some good reason to do
so either appears in the administrative record or is
presented by the party petitioning for judicial review.”
Shawano Gun & Loan, LLC, 650 F.3d at 1076 (quoting Stein’s Inc. v. Blumenthal,
649 F.2d 463, 466 (7th Cir. 1980)); see also 18 U.S.C. § 923(f)(3) (district court
“may” consider any evidence submitted by the parties, but statute does not require
court to do so). Additionally, “[u]nder the de novo standard of review for a decision
of the ATF, the district court may give the agency’s finding and decision such weight
as it believes they deserve, but need not accord any particular deference to those
findings.” Gilbert v. Bangs, 813 F. Supp. 2d 669, 672-73 (D. Md. 2011) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Stated differently, the decision under review “is not
necessarily clothed with any presumption of correctness or other advantage.” Stein’s,
649 F.2d at 466-67. Although the court’s review is de novo, “the statute makes it
clear that the focus of that review is narrow: whether the Attorney General was
‘authorized’ to revoke the license.” Suydam v. ATF, 847 F. Supp. 2d 146, 156 (D.
Me. 2012).

10

As this permissive standard suggests, in actions brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 923(f)(3), district courts are not obligated to hold evidentiary hearings, or even to
consider evidence in addition to that presented during the administrative proceedings.
See Shawano Gun & Loan, LLC, 650 F.3d at 1076 (quoting Stein’s Inc. v.
Blumenthal, 649 F.2d 463, 466 (7th Cir. 1980) (good reason to hold evidentiary
hearing must appear in the record); Cucchiara v. Secretary of the Treasury, 652 F.2d
28, 30, n.1 (9th Cir. 1981) (district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling without
conducting an evidentiary hearing, where the court found no substantial basis to
receive additional evidence); Perri v. Dep’t of Treasury, 637 F.2d 1332, 1335 (9th
Cir. 1981); Willingham Sports, Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, 348
F. Supp. 2d 1299, 1306 (S.D. Ala. 2004) (“Nonetheless, that the Gun Control Act
provides for de novo review of administrative decisions is not to vest a firearm dealer
with an absolute right to an evidentiary hearing in appealing from an adverse ATF
decision. Case law is to the contrary.”). Another district court has characterized
motions for summary judgment brought in actions challenging license revocations as
follows:
As recognized in Stein's v. Blumenthal, under the
traditional summary judgment standard, “technically fact
finding is inappropriate and all reasonable inferences must
be draw in favor of the party opposing the motion.” 649
F.2d 463, 468 n. 7 (7th Cir.1980). In contrast, § 923(f)(3)
11

authorizes the district court to hear any evidence it wishes
and make findings of fact, even without the benefit of
conducting an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 466 (“The
ultimate decision as to the law and the facts remains with
the trial judge.”). Thus, while the Court's decision may be
“summary” in nature as a matter of form, procedurally the
Court may issue a decision even if material issues of fact
exist, based upon its evaluation of the record and any
additional evidence it has received.
Pinion Enterprises, Inc. v. Ashcroft, 371 F. Supp. 2d 1311, 1314 n.6 (N.D. Ala.2005).
Accordingly, in conducting a de novo review of an ATF revocation decision,
in order to uphold the ATF decision a district court must be satisfied that ATF
appropriately found that (1) the licensee violated one or more provisions of the GCA,
and (2) the licensee willfully committed the violation.

27 C.F.R. § 478.73

(“[W]henever the Director has reason to believe that a licensee has willfully violated
any provision of the Act or this part, a notice of revocation of the license, ATF Form
4500, may be issued.”); see also Willingham Sports, Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms, 415 F.3d 1274, 1276 (11th Cir. 2005); 18 U.S.C. § 923(f)(3).
D.

Plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) Motion Fails Because the Discovery He Seeks
Leave to Take is Not Relevant to the Legal Issues Presented in this
Action

In addition to the two undisputed elements that must be found to uphold a
revocation of a federal firearms license – violations of the GCA or its regulations,
committed wilfully – Petitioner argues that there is a third issue that the Court must
12

consider if it ultimately finds that Petitioner willfully violated any provision of the
GCA: “whether ATF’s controlling internal policies permit his revocation – that is,
was ATF authorized to revoke Taylor’s FFL.” (Doc. 34, at 6.)
Petitioner bases his motion for an extension of time to take discovery in
substantial part upon this assertion that ATF’s internal policies are somehow relevant
to the Court’s de novo review of ATF’s revocation decision in this case.1 However,
although Petitioner offers statutory and caselaw citations purportedly in support of
this assertion regarding the applicable standard of review, (Doc. 34, at 6.),
examination of this authority reveals that it does not stand for the legal proposition
offered. Indeed, this Court’s own research has uncovered no caselaw, statute, or
regulation that suggests in any way that ATF’s internal policies have any relevance
to the question of whether ATF was entitled to revoke a federal firearms license upon
findings of willful violations of the GCA. Instead, federal courts have clearly and

Among his various discovery requests propounded upon ATF, Petitioner
seeks discovery of “files related to every FFL holder from January 1, 2008,
through the present whose license has been revoked by ATF,” “files related to
every FFL holder from January 1, 2008, through the present who has been
inspected and found to have violated the Gun Control Act in any manner within
the past five years, but whose license was ultimately not revoked,” and “files
related to every petition for judicial review by FFL holders from January 1, 2008,
through the present that has been brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 923(f)(3) of the
Gun Control Act.” (Doc. 34-2, at 6-7 (Petitioner’s First Set of Discovery
Requests, at 9-10).)
1

13

consistently held that in reviewing ATF’s revocation decision, the Court is to
consider evidence from the parties, and to determine (1) whether the licensee violated
a provision of the GCA and, if so, (2) whether the licensee willfully committed the
violation. See, e.g., Borchardt Rifle Corp. v. Cook, 684 F.3d 1037, 1040 (11th Cir.
2012); American Arms International v. Herbert, 563 F.3d 78, 82 (4th Cir. 2009);
Armalite, Inc., 544 F.3d at 647; Stein’s, Inc., 649 F.2d at 466-67.
Respondent has also brought to the Court’s attention that this is not the first
time that Petitioner’s counsel, together with a former ATF employee, James
Zammillo, have attempted to challenge ATF’s alleged failure to follow its internal
policies and procedures as a basis for appealing a revocation of a federal firearms
license. See Weaver v. Harris, __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2012 WL 848054 (S.D. Miss. Mar.
12, 2012). In that case, the district court flatly rejected this argument, and concluded
that:
Zammillo states the ATF violated its own policies and
procedures by revoking Weaver’s license in this way.
Nevertheless, there appears to be no legal reason why the
ATF is limited in its ability to initiate revocation
proceedings in the face of a violation. The pertinent
regulation provides that “[w]henever the Director has
reason to believe that a licensee has willfully violated any
provision of the Act or this part, a notice of revocation of
the license, ATF Form 4500, may be issued.” 27 C.F.R. §
478.73. Because the Court’s review is limited to whether
the ATF’s actions were “authorized”, the evidence
14

regarding how another official would have exercised the
ATF’s discretion under these circumstances is not helpful.
Id. at *4.2 In the absence of any persuasive authority to the contrary, we agree with
the district court in Weaver that the discovery that Plaintiff seeks to take from ATF
regarding internal policies and decisions made in other cases involving violations of
the Gun Control Act is simply not germane to the issues presented in this proceeding.
Accordingly, we find no merit to Plaintiff’s motion that he should be permitted leave
to take additional discovery of, inter alia, ATF’s internal policies and procedures,
past instances of violations, and other revocation decisions made over the past several
years.3

In Weaver, the petitioner had also filed a Rule 56(d) motion seeking
discovery, and relied upon arguments similar to those made to the Court in this
case. The Weaver court denied that motion, having found the petitioner’s
inquiries regarding internal policies and procedures to be “completely unrelated to
the issue of Weaver’s willfulness” and therefore “any such discovery would not be
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as required
by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).” (Doc. 35, Ex. 2) (Weaver v. Harris, No. 1:10cv574
(S.D. Miss. Sept. 12, 2011) (slip op. at 4).)
2

In his moving papers, Petitioner suggests that the Supreme Court’s
decisions in INS v. Yang, 519 U.S. 26, 32 (1995) and Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S.
199, 235 (1974), provide support for his view that ATF’s internal policies and
procedures should be subject to discovery in these proceedings brought pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 923(f)(3). Specifically, Petitioner focuses on language in Yang
where the Supreme Court stated that if “[INS] announces and follows – by rule or
by settled course of adjudication – a general policy by which its exercise of
discretion will be governed, an irrational departure from that policy (as opposed to
an avowed alteration of it) could constitute action that must be overturned as
3

15

Although his brief seems to focus chiefly on the third element that he attempted
to graft onto the Court’s review of the revocation decision pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
923(f)(3), Petitioner also makes assorted other arguments in his motion that we
likewise do not find persuasive. First, Petitioner indicates that he intends to challenge
the ATF’s finding of willfulness, and represents that he “intends to present evidence
in support of such a conclusion, but it necessarily includes information that is solely
in ATF’s possession that ATF refuses to provide unless compelled to do so by this

‘arbitrary, capricious, [or] an abuse of discretion’ within the meaning of the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).” 519 U.S. at 32. The Court
made this observation immediately prior to finding that “the INS has not, however,
disregarded its general policy here . . . .” Id.
Although Petitioner faults Respondent for not squarely addressing Yang, we
disagree that Yang is even relevant in this context. Even assuming arguendo that
the Supreme Court’s observation in Yang constitutes a holding and not dicta, our
research has found no case that has applied Yang in the manner that Petitioner
suggests. Indeed, federal courts considering similar arguments have found that the
revocation decisions conducted pursuant to the GCA are not subject to the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). See, e.g., Shaffer v. Holder,
No. 1:09-0030, 2010 WL 1408829, at *14 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 30, 2010) (APA does
not apply to GCA revocation proceedings); Arwady Hand Truck Sales, Inc. v.
Vander Werf, 507 F. Supp. 2d 754, __ (S.D. Tex. 2007) (same). We find these
decisions persuasive, and we thus disagree that the Supreme Court’s observation
in the factually and legally distinct context presented in Yang has any relevance to
the issues before the Court. Again, those issues are straightforward, and require
that we conduct a de novo review of ATF’s revocation decision, in order to
determine whether Petitioner willfully violated one or more provisions of the Gun
Control Act or its regulations. We are not charged with examining the internal
operating procedures of the ATF as part of this undertaking.
16

Court.” (Doc. 34. at 10.) But aside from arguments regarding ATF’s internal policies
and procedures, Petitioner’s brief is silent on what information in ATF’s possession
has relevance to the issue of whether his violations were willful, and why such
information is not equally available to him.4
In short, we find Petitioner’s assertions regarding the relevance of ATF’s
internal policies and procedures to be unpersuasive and without compelling legal
support. We also do not find that Taylor has adequately explained how the discovery
he wishes to seek is relevant to the issues before the Court in these proceedings, or
how he has been frustrated in obtaining the information he would present in support
of his claims in this litigation. Accordingly, we do find that Taylor has not sustained
his burden under Rule 56(d), and his motion will be denied. The Court will set a final
briefing schedule on the pending motion for summary judgment, and after the briefing

We note that our decision to deny Petitioner’s Rule 56(d) motion does not
necessarily mean that the Court has determined not to receive any additional
evidence that Petitioner may wish to submit bearing upon the relevant question of
whether his apparently acknowledged violations of the Gun Control Act were
“willful”. The Court will make a determination about whether to hold an
evidentiary hearing, and whether to invite additional evidence at such a hearing,
after Respondent’s motion for summary judgment is fully briefed.
4

17

has closed the Court will determine whether to convene an evidentiary hearing and
entertain argument in this matter.5
IV.

ORDER
Accordingly, upon due consideration, and for the reasons set forth above, IT

IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to
complete discovery pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(Doc. 33.) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the stay imposed by this Court’s prior
order (Doc. 32.) is LIFTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the following briefing schedule shall
apply to Respondent’s motion for summary judgment:
1.

Petitioner shall file a brief in opposition to the motion, together with a
counterstatement of material facts pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, on or
before Monday, October 8, 2012.

We encourage Petitioner to explain in his briefs what additional evidence
he would have the Court consider in support of his contention that his violations
of the GCA were not willful, and explain the relevance of the evidence he would
submit.
5

18

2.

Respondent shall be permitted to file a reply brief in further support of
its motion for summary judgment within 14 days of the date on which
Petitioner’s opposition brief is filed.

3.

All briefs must comport with the requirements prescribed by Local Rule
7.8.

4.

No additional briefing other than that provided for in this order shall be
permitted without leave of court.

/s/ Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: September 20, 2012

19