Suspension for failure to appear at work, when plaintiff contends he was seeking leave, was supported by legitimate disciplinary purpose. District court did not abuse discretion by denying Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) motion to take additional depositions (granted in part) and for production of e-mails, where latter was new discovery and plaintiff had already had ten months to complete his work.Gaujacq v. Electricité de France, S.A., 601 F.3d 565, 108 FEP 1601 (D.C. Cir. 2010). Panel: EDWARDS, Henderson, Williams.
Outcome on Appeal: Affirmed [defendant]. Grounds: Court had subject- matter jurisdiction to consider, on a converted Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 motion, whether claim was barred by ministerial exception. Exception applied where employee duties as director of the Department of Religious Formation included "responsibilities that furthered the core of the spiritual mission of the Diocese, " e.g., supervising the Pastoral Studies Institute to "provide a solid foundation in Catholic theology to educate, nourish, strengthen, and renew the Catholic faith "; "the development and planning of theological and other religious education programs "; and teaching multiple religious courses at the Institute.
t developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues:a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decision affirming a bankruptcy court’s award of over $165,000 as reasonable costs and fees to nonparty subpoena recipients in connection with their collection and review of documents responsive to burdensome subpoenasa U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruling allowing plaintiff to inspect all of defendants’ electronic devices to determine whether the devices were used in an online fraud and requiring defendants to provide a list of all their devices and produce any browser history records relevant to the allegationsa U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada order granting a motion to compel plaintiff in a slip-and-fall case to produce medical, police and insurance records relating to prior accidents, certain social media content, and email and text messagesa U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California decision denying defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) request for additional time to disclose its own records to rebut plaintiff’s summary judgment motion and granting the summary judgment motion1. In In re Modern Plastics Corp., 2018 WL 1959536 (6th Cir. 2018), the Sixth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s award of over $165,000 as reasonable costs and fees to nonparty subpoena recipients in connection with their collection and review of documents responsive to several burdensome subpoenas.This case arose out of an adversarial bankruptcy proceeding brought by New Products Corporation (NPC) against the Chapter 7 trustee and his surety alleging that the trustee breached his fiduciary duties with respect to NPC’s real estate holdings.
no prejudice to plaintiff, where she was long aware of witness's testimony that she was unaware of employee's charge filed with state agency. No abuse of discretion in denying FRCP56(d) motion where plaintiff had delayed until the end of discovery in noticing depositions and then, after getting leave to extend discovery, waited another two months to depose principal witness. Also, plaintiff failed to demonstrate probability that deposition would produce additional material facts.
Honda moved for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims of a design defect under theories of strict liability, breach of warranty, and negligence. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is warranted if no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986).
Grounds: 1. Sanction to unfile Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) motion for aleged local rule violation was an abuse of discretion. District court as wrong on the facts (the signature was a bona fide lawyer), and overreacted to boot.
Plaintiffs argued that there was a genuine issue of material fact about causal, racial motivation, but plaintiffs waived this argument by cross-moving for summary judgment and not presenting such documents in evidence. Plaintiffs also waived by not filing a FRCP56(f) motion for additional discovery. In any event, reordering of hire list was within scope of earlier decree.
All parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all material that is pertinent to the motion. The Court found that although the matter presently before the Court was triggered by the filing of a Motion to Dismiss by the Debtor seeking dismissal of the Complaint, because the Debtor argued that the Plaintiff had no liability for the debt at issue and as a consequence, matters outside of the pleadings were presented by the parties and not excluded by the Court, that the Motion to Dismiss should be treated as one for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), made applicable through these proceedings by Fed. R. of Bankr. P. 7056, directs that: [t]he 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.
’” Finally, the plaintiff argued that to respond to the defendants’ summary judgment motion, she required additional time to conduct discovery regarding her recently diagnosed neurological and neuropsychological conditions, as well as Aldara’s allegedly dangerous design. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), the Court may allow time to take discovery “[i]f a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration” that she cannot present facts to justify her opposition to a summary judgment motion and that discovery might remedy that deficit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).
Baron appealed.On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that it was improper for the district court to have refused Baron’s request to delay ruling on MWI’s SJ motion until Baron had the opportunity to access MWI’s source code and depose its employees. “Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), a party opposing a summary judgment motion may request that a district court delay ruling on the motion in order to obtain additional discovery without which ‘it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition.’” Id.