Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v. Conestoga Trust Services, LLC (PLR1)

Filing 44

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; granting plaintiff's motion to amend the briefing scheduleas set forth. Plaintiff's motion for expedited ruling or status conference 40 is DENIED as moot. Signed by District Judge Pamela L Reeves on 3/25/16. (ADA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE

SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF
CANADA,
Plaintiff,
v.
CONESTOGA TRUST SERVICES, LLC,
As Trustee of Conestoga Settlement Trust,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.: 3:14-CV-539-PLR-HBG

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to amend the briefing
schedule for dispositive motions [R. 39]. In support of the motion, plaintiff states that
defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on March 8, 2016, prior to the parties
completing discovery. Trial of this case has been continued to March 3, 2017, and the
deadline for completing discovery is nine months away. Plaintiff requests an extension
of time to respond to the motion so plaintiff may obtain discovery to properly respond to
the motion. Plaintiff has conferred with defendant, however, defendant will not agree to
the requested extension [R. 41].
Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that in the event that a
party cannot present facts essential to justify the party’s 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. See, e.g., AT&T Corp. v.
L&M Music, Inc.,2008 WL 4415422 at *7 (E.D.Tenn. Sept. 24, 2008) (holding it would
be premature and improper to award summary judgment when discovery was not
scheduled to end for five months); Ball v. Union Carbide Corp., 385 F.3d 713, 719 (6th
Cir. 2004) (affirming the “well established” principle that the plaintiff must receive “a
full opportunity to conduct discovery to be able to successfully defeat a motion for
summary judgment”).
The court finds that plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of Rule 56(d). That is,
plaintiff has provided the declaration of its attorney in support of the request, identifying
plaintiff’s need for discovery, the issues and facts about which plaintiff seeks to gain
information, and why plaintiff has not previously discovered the information. Discovery
will also assist the court to resolve the issues raised by defendant’s motion for summary
judgment. Moreover, the court finds that defendant will not prejudiced by an order
allowing discovery on the claims sought to be dismissed.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to amend the briefing schedule [R. 39] is
GRANTED as follows:
1.

The court will defer consideration of defendant’s motion for summary

judgment;
2.

Plaintiff’s response to the motion for summary judgment shall be due

October 4, 2016;

2

3.

Plaintiff’s motion for expedited ruling or status conference [R. 40] is

DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3