State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Johnson Controls, Inc. et al

Filing 37

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 30 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying as Moot 34 Motion to Extend Deadline. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 1/27/16. (Anderson, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY )
COMPANY, As subrogee and assignee of )
Martha L. Dean,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. and
)
JOHNSON CONTROLS BATTERY
)
GROUP, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)

No. 15-2559-STA-cgc

ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is Plaintiff State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 30) filed on November 30, 2015. In its Rule 56 Motion, Plaintiff
seeks judgment as a matter of law on two affirmative defenses raised by Defendants in their
Answer: statute of limitations and spoliation. Defendants Johnson Controls, Inc. and Johnson
Controls Battery Group, Inc. responded (ECF No. 31) to the Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment on December 28, 2015. In their response brief, Defendants state that they do not
intend to pursue their statute of limitations defense and therefore do not oppose Plaintiff’s
Motion as to that issue. Based on Defendants’ lack of opposition, Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to the statute of limitations issue.
With respect to the spoliation issue, Defendants argue that the Court “need not decide the
issue now and may never have to decide it.” Defendants included spoliation as an affirmative

1

defense in their Answer out of an abundance of caution. Defendants point out that some
jurisdictions treat spoliation as an affirmative defense while others treat spoliation as a discovery
issue. Defendants have now offered Plaintiff “a stipulation that spoliation could be addressed as
a discovery issue if and when it is ripe so long as Defendants’ rights are preserved in case
[spoliation] is determined to be an affirmative defense.” On January 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed an
unopposed Motion to Defer Ruling on the Spoliation Issue (ECF No. 34). Plaintiff states that in
light of Defendants’ briefing on the spoliation issue, Plaintiff and Defendants agree that the
Court should defer its “ruling on the spoliation issue . . . until 30 days past the close of discovery
in this case” with the parties to file supplemental briefing on spoliation within 10 days of the
close of discovery.
The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendants’
affirmative defense of spoliation is not yet ripe. The parties appear to agree that the Court should
not and perhaps cannot address the issue of spoliation until discovery is complete. The current
case management deadline for completing all discovery is June 27, 2016. Rather than leaving
Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment open for the next six months, or until such time
as discovery is completed, the Court finds that the better course is to deny Plaintiff’s Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment as to the spoliation issue but without prejudice to raise the issue in a
separate motion at a later time.

Therefore, the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is

DENIED without prejudice as to the spoliation issue.
In light of the Court’s decision to deny the Rule 56 Motion without prejudice to raise the
spoliation issue in a subsequent motion, Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion to Defer Ruling on the
Spoliation Issue is, strictly speaking, moot. The Court declines to adopt a specific briefing
schedule on the spoliation issue and would prefer for the parties to raise the issue by filing an

2

appropriate motion at a later time, if and when the spoliation issue ripens. Therefore, the Motion
to Defer Ruling is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: January 27, 2016.

.

3