United States District Court, D. Arizona
S. WILLETT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Court has reviewed Plaintiff's “Motion to Enlarge
Time to Respond Under 56” (Doc. 150). In Motion,
Plaintiff requests an extension of the deadline to respond to
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 146). (Doc.
150 at 1). Referencing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56,
Plaintiff also requests the production of a number of
documents. (Id. at 2).
justify a continuance of a motion for summary judgment
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d), the moving party must show
that “(1) it has set forth in affidavit form the
specific facts it hopes to elicit from further discovery; (2)
the facts sought exist; and (3) the sought-after facts are
essential to oppose summary judgment.” Family Home
& Fin. Ctr. Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 525
F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2008). Denial of a Rule 56(d) motion
is proper if the movant fails to comply with the requirements
of Rule 56(d) or if the movant has failed to conduct
discovery diligently. See, e.g., United States
v. Kitsap Physicians Service, 314 F.3d 995, 1000
(9th Cir. 2002) (“Failure to comply with [the
requirements of Rule 56(d)] is a proper ground for denying
relief.”); Pfingston v. Ronan Engineering Co.,
284 F.3d 999, 1005 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The failure to
conduct discovery diligently is grounds for the denial of a
Rule 56[d] motion.”); Mackey v. Pioneer Nat'l
Bank, 867 F.2d 520, 524 (9th Cir. 1989) (“A movant
cannot complain if it fails diligently to pursue discovery
before summary judgment”); Landmark Dev. Corp. v.
Chambers Corp., 752 F.2d 369, 372 (9th Cir. 1985)
(ruling that district court properly denied the
plaintiffs' Rule 56(d) motion because the
“[f]ailure to take further depositions apparently
resulted largely from plaintiffs' own delay”).
has had sufficient opportunity to conduct discovery in this
case. See Chance v. Pac-Tel Teletrac Inc., 242 F.3d
1151, 1161 n.6 (explaining that a district court may deny
relief under Rule 56(d) if the party opposing summary
judgment has failed to diligently pursue discovery).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 15) will be denied
as to his request for the production of the documents listed
therein. The Court will grant Plaintiff's request for an
extension of the deadline for responding to Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 146).
February 11, 2019, Defendants filed “Motion to Strike
Plaintiff's Proffer of Cases” (Doc. 151). This
Motion duplicates the Motion to Strike (Doc. 60) filed by
Defendant Corizon in June 2018, which the Court granted (Doc.
103). Document 51 was stricken. Therefore, Defendants'
“Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Proffer of
Cases” (Doc. 151) will be denied as moot.
also have filed a Motion to Strike (Doc. 152) Plaintiff's
“Request to Notice” (Doc. 149). Plaintiff's
Notice does not contain a request for Court action. In the
interest of controlling the Court's docket, the Court
will not allow the parties to file notices that are not
required to be filed pursuant to the Federal and Local Rules
of Civil Procedure (e.g. a “Notice of Service”
filed pursuant to LRCiv 5.2 of the disclosures and discovery
requests and responses listed in Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(d)). Disputes
between the parties that pertain to this action are resolved
by the Court only through the filing of a proper motion in
accordance with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil
Procedure 7. See Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg.,
Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) (“It is
well established that ‘[d]istrict courts have inherent
power to control their docket.'”) (citations
omitted). If Plaintiff believes the information in his
“Request to Notice” (Doc. 149) is pertinent to
the issue of summary judgment, then Plaintiff may include the
information in his response to Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 146). Plaintiffs “Request to
Notice” (Doc. 149) will be stricken.
on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED denying in
part and granting in part Plaintiffs “Motion to Enlarge
Time to Respond Under 56” (Doc. 150) as set forth
IS FURTHER ORDERED extending the deadline for
Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 146) to April 3, 2019.
IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Defendants'
“Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Proffer of Cases”
IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants'
“Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Request to Notice”
IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Plaintiffs Request ...