We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy .
Lexology Newsfeed

  • Blog
  • Events
  • Popular
  • Awards
  • About
  • Login
  • Register

  • Blog
  • Events
  • Popular
  • Awards
  • About
  • Login
  • Register
  • Newsfeed
  • Navigator
  • Hubs
  • Webinars
  • Store

  • Analytics
  • Insights

  • Track
  • Create
  • My Lexology
  • Newsfeed
  • Navigator
  • Hubs
  • Webinars
  • Store

  • Analytics
  • Insights

  • Track
  • Create
  • My Lexology
Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Print
  • Share

  • Follow

    Please login to follow content.
  • Like

Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.

Questions? Please contact [email protected]

Register

Parties must diligently pursue discovery under Rule 56(f)

Day Pitney LLP
USA October 12 2007

When opposing summary judgment, particularly in the early stages of a case or before discovery is complete, attorneys should keep in mind the range of tools at their disposal – including Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), which provides for a continuance to conduct additional discovery. Under Rule 56(f), if a non-moving party cannot obtain an affidavit sufficient to support its opposition to summary judgment, it may instead file an affidavit stating why it was unable to do so. The First Circuit recently reaffirmed and tightened the legal standards for Rule 56(f) motions and affidavits in Rivera-Torres et al. v. Rey-Hernandez, et al., 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 21292 (1st Cir., Sept. 6, 2007) (Selya, J.).

A court may grant a Rule 56(f) continuance to a party opposing summary judgment where discovery is incomplete, summary judgment is otherwise premature, or facts essential to the non-movant are in the exclusive control of the moving party. As the First Circuit noted, the rule is liberally applied: “When a party confronted by a motion for summary judgment legitimately needs additional time to marshal the facts necessary to mount an opposition, the rule provides a useful safety valve.”

The rule has limits, however. The First Circuit stressed that a litigant seeking to invoke Rule 56(f) must demonstrate to the court by affidavit that it deserves relief. The litigant must show: (i) plausible grounds for believing that additional facts exist and can be retrieved within a reasonable time, (ii) its efforts to obtain those facts and why they were unsuccessful, and (iii) how the facts sought are reasonably expected to create a material issue of fact. In Rivera-Torres, the First Circuit added a new requirement: (iv) the party seeking relief must also diligently conduct discovery before summary judgment is filed and seek timely extensions of time afterward.

The Rivera-Torres plaintiffs alleged political discrimination in the defendant state agency’s failure to renew their employment contracts. The case’s procedural history is extreme, although not entirely exceptional: after over two years of the plaintiffs’ missed deadlines and other inexcusable failures, the defendants filed for summary judgment. The plaintiffs requested multiple extensions of time to oppose summary judgment, and filed a Rule 56(f) motion for continuance. After ten months, they still had not filed an opposition. The district court denied the Rule 56(f) motion and granted summary judgment for the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed. The First Circuit found little merit to the appeal, but capitalized on the opportunity to address the plaintiffs’ attempt to invoke Rule 56(f).

The court held that the plaintiffs did not meet any of the 56(f) standards. “To begin, the plaintiffs’ Rule 56(f) motion failed to show good cause for their professed inability to conduct the desired discovery at an earlier date. The district court afforded the parties a reasonable interval for pretrial discovery – they had almost 18 months from the inception of the action – and, for aught that appears, the plaintiffs simply frittered the time away.…” The plaintiffs blamed the defendants’ uncooperative behavior, a third party’s refusal to produce a list of potential witnesses, their counsel’s poor health, and the fact that the case was transferred between judges. The only missing excuse, inferred from Judge Selya’s failure to mention it, was that their dog ate their draft opposition. In any event, the court was not persuaded. Among other shortcomings, it found that the plaintiffs had not proven that the additional information they requested even existed. “Even after the defendants moved for summary judgment, the plaintiffs dragged their feet: they lollygagged more than five months before filing their Rule 56(f) motion and announcing their professed need to depose the regional directors. That was too little and too late.…”

Despite the extreme circumstances in this case, the First Circuit’s opinion provides useful lessons for practitioners. The court’s decision was clearly guided by its perception that the plaintiffs did not diligently pursue their claims. Parties should, of course, thoroughly seek discovery during the available time periods. If an opposing party resists or fails to comply in a timely manner with its discovery obligations, counsel should promptly press for compliance, not wait until summary judgment motions are filed. While Rule 56(f) is available to oppose a particularly difficult or premature summary judgment motion, it should not be relied on to excuse dilatoriness or inaction. As the First Circuit reiterated, Rule 56(f) protects against courts “swinging the summary judgment axe too hastily,” but it also warned that “Rule 56(f) is meant to minister to the vigilant, not to those who sleep upon perceptible rights.”

Day Pitney LLP – Erica Tennyson
Back Forward
  • Save & file
  • View original
  • Forward
  • Print
  • Share

  • Follow

    Please login to follow content.
  • Like

Filed under

  • USA
  • Litigation
  • Day Pitney LLP

Tagged with

  • Motion in US law
  • Discrimination
  • Employment contract
  • Discovery (law)
  • Government agency
  • Grant (money)
  • Witness
  • First Circuit
  • Allegation
  • Question of fact
  • Affidavit
  • Sommeil
  • Perception
  • Filing (legal)
  • Axe
  • Continuance

Popular articles from this firm

  1. Massachusetts wage and hour laws: the top 10 violations*
  2. When can employees provide unpaid volunteer services?*
  3. Failure to replead dismissed claims in an amended complaint may constitute waiver of right to appeal*
  4. How to convince a federal court to retain jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreements*
  5. NJ Court Recognizes Privacy Law Claim Based on HIPAA Violation*

If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email [email protected] .

Send to Create

Powered by Lexology

Related topic hubs

  1. Discrimination
  2. USA
  3. Litigation

Related USA articles

  1. Significant amendments to Federal Rules 8, 26 and 56*
  2. Seventh Circuit confirms that a party opposing summary judgment still needs to submit an affidavit or declaration if it needs more discovery under FRCP 56(d)*
  3. Finally, we’re back to “put up, or shut up”*

Related international articles

  1. Simplified procedure* – Canada
  2. Summary judgment & determination of an issue before trial* – Canada
  3. Supreme Court of Puerto Rico Adopts the “Sham Affidavit by Contradiction Doctrine” and Reaffirms that Bona Fide Reorganizations of Employers Constitute Just Cause for Termination* – Puerto Rico

Lexology Navigator Q&A

Compare jurisdictions:Arbitration

  1. USA
  2. France
  3. Thailand
  4. View more
Christine I. Mackiw
Vice President, Records Management & Chief Privacy Officer
Sun Life Financial
What our clients say

"Working in a company with international operations I very much appreciate your cross section of coverage."

Back to Top

  • Terms of use
  • Cookies
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy policy
  • GDPR Compliance
  • RSS feeds
  • Contact
  • Submissions
  • About
  • Login
  • Register
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Search
Globe Business Media Group

© Copyright 2006 – 2018 Globe Business Media Group

Object moved to here .