M.S. v. Utah School for the Deaf and the Blind
MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 123 Motion for Discovery. Plaintiff will be allowed to file a response to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment within twenty-eight (28) days of this Order. Defendant may then file a reply memorandum within fourteen (14) days pursuant to DUCivR7-1(b)(3). Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 6/19/17. (jlw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
M.S., a minor, by and through her parent,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO END FURTHER RULE 56(d)
UTAH SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND
Case No. 2:13-CV-420 TS
District Judge Ted Stewart
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to End Further Rule 56(d)
Discovery. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the Motion.
On October 7, 2016, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in this case. On
November 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Rule 56(d) Motion alleging she had not yet obtained the
necessary discovery to adequately respond to Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion and
requesting additional time to respond. The Court granted Plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) Motion on March
9, 2016, allowing Plaintiff time for additional discovery and allowing Plaintiff twenty-eight days
after the parties completed discovery to respond to Defendant’s Motion. 1
On June 1, 2017, Defendant filed this Motion to end Plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) discovery and
start the twenty-eight-day clock on Plaintiff’s time to respond. Defendant alleges that it has
provided Plaintiff with the documents Plaintiff requested, but that Plaintiff has not taken the
necessary action to complete the remaining discovery requested in Plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) Motion.
Specifically, Plaintiff did not attempt to schedule a day on which a videographer and an expert
See Docket No. 114.
would attend M.S.’s school to film/observe M.S. in her school setting. The school year has now
ended. Defendant argues that allowing Plaintiff to extend discovery until the beginning of the
next school year will prejudice Defendant.
Pursuant to DUCivR 7-1(b)(3)(B), Plaintiff had fourteen days to respond to Defendant’s
Motion. The fourteen-day deadline expired on June 15, 2017. To date, Plaintiff has not filed a
DUCivR 7-1(d) provides that “[f]ailure to respond timely to a motion may result in the
court’s granting the motion without further notice.” Due to Plaintiff’s failure to respond and offer
argument as to why discovery should not be concluded, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion.
Rule 56(d) discovery is therefore concluded and, pursuant to the Court’s previous Order granting
Plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) Motion, Plaintiff has twenty-eight days from the date of this Order to file a
memorandum in response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Failure to respond
may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to End Further Discovery (Docket No. 123) is
GRANTED. Plaintiff will be allowed to file a response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment within twenty-eight (28) days of this Order. Defendant may then file a reply
memorandum within fourteen (14) days pursuant to DUCivR7-1(b)(3).
DATED this 19th day of June, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
United States District Judge
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?