Federoff et al v. Geisinger Clinic et al
ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants' 26 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann on 5/10/2022. (jr)
Case 4:21-cv-01903-MWB Document 36 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
THEODORE FEDEROFF, et al.,
(Chief Judge Brann)
GEISINGER CLINIC, et al.,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MAY 10, 2022
On December 3, 2021, just over a week after this Court denied the Geisinger
Employees’ motion for a preliminary injunction to halt the implementation of the
Health System’s vaccinate-or-test program, Geisinger moved for summary judgment
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.1 This summary judgment motion, unlike
most in federal court, was not preceded by a Rule 12(b) motion, an answer, or even
But typicality and permissibility are not one in the same. Rule 56 provides
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
See Doc. 26.
Case 4:21-cv-01903-MWB Document 36 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 2
close of all discovery.” So “[n]othing precludes either party from moving for
summary judgment before the defendant answers the complaint.”2
Yet while parties are permitted to file Rule 56 motions in the early stages of
litigation, the decision to entertain them remains in the sound discretion of the
District Court.3 And this Court believes that Geisinger’s motion is currently
premature. Geisinger has identified numerous flaws in the Employees’ case. But
these shortcomings are best addressed in a 12(b)(6) motion—after the Employees
have had an opportunity to amend and without the complications posed by an
undeveloped factual record.
AND NOW IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment (Doc. 26) is DENIED, without prejudice.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
Chief United States District Judge
Rule 56. Summary Judgment, 2 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules and Commentary
Ferreiras v. York County, Pennsylvania, 2006 WL 1967365, at *2 (M.D. Pa. July 12, 2006)
(McClure, J.) (“the district court is empowered with discretion to decide whether the
movant’s motion [for summary judgment] is ripe”); see also 10A Charles Alan Wright, et
al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2718 (4th ed.) (“Nonetheless, even though the rule
itself does not specify a time before which a summary-judgment motion cannot be made by
a defending party, there may be circumstances in which a very early motion may be deemed
premature because the issues need further development. Thus, as is true for motions by
claimants, it is within the trial court’s discretion to deny a motion for summary judgment
without prejudice to its being renewed at a later time and the court may grant a renewed
motion upon a showing of good cause.”).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?