Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03309/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03309-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RIKKI T. LEER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

DEPUTY J. GOULART, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 14-cv-03309-DMR (PR) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RULE 

56(D) MOTION; AND GRANTING HIS 

REQUEST FOR A SECOND 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Plaintiff filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Both 

parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, and this matter has been assigned to the 

undersigned Magistrate Judge. 

Pending before the court are Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, as well as 

Plaintiff’s “Application for Extension of Time to File Rule 56(f) [Motion],” which is construed as 

a motion for an order pursuant to Rule 56(d) for an extension of time to oppose Defendant’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkts. 16, 21. 

Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides a procedure by which a party 

may avoid summary judgment when such party has not had sufficient opportunity to discover 

affirmative evidence necessary to oppose the motion.1

 See Garrett v. City & Cnty. of San 

Francisco, 818 F. 2d 1515, 1518 (9th Cir. 1987). In particular, Rule 56(d) provides that a court 

may deny a summary judgment motion and permit the opposing party to conduct discovery where 

it appears that the opposing party, in the absence of such discovery, is unable to present facts 

 1 Garrett and Plaintiff in the instant action both cite to Rule 56(f), the subsection in which 

the provisions pertaining to a party’s inability to present facts essential to justify its opposition 

formerly were set forth; as of December 1, 2010, the applicable provision is Rule 56(d). See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 56. 

Case 4:14-cv-03309-DMR Document 22 Filed 04/22/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

essential to opposing the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). A Rule 56(d) motion requires the moving 

party to show; “(1) that they have set forth in affidavit form the specific facts that they hope to 

elicit from further discovery, (2) that the facts sought exist, and (3) that these sought-after facts are 

‘essential’ to resist the summary judgment motion.” State of Cal., on Behalf of Cal. Dept. of Toxic 

Substances Control v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998). A proper Rule 56(d) motion 

must contain more than a list of desired documents; it must specify what particular facts those 

requested documents will reveal if obtained and why those facts are necessary to oppose the 

summary judgment motion effectively. 

Here, Plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) motion is not well-taken. First, Plaintiff claims he needs a 

continuance to “write witnesses and/or write to prisoners in CDCR.” Dkt. 21 at 1. However, 

Plaintiff has not stated what facts such interviews—with unnamed witnesses/prisoners—will 

reveal and why those facts are necessary to avoid summary judgment in this case. Furthermore, 

Plaintiff claims he has also filed a “Pitchess Motion,”

2

 presumably in state superior court, in an 

effort to “gather[] corroborating facts that [Defendant] J. Goulart has had excessive force 

[complaints], within his internal affairs file and Citizen’s complaints.” Id. at 2. The Court finds 

that any such discovery would be futile in opposing Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 

A party cannot oppose a summary judgment motion with inadmissible evidence. See e.g., Beyene 

v. Coleman Sec. Services, Inc., 854 F.2d 1179, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 1988) (district court erred in 

considering hearsay in ruling on summary judgment motion); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Evidence of 

past wrongs to show action in conformity therewith, as Plaintiff seeks to establish in this case, is 

inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid. 404. Plaintiff does not state how any such complaints against 

Defendant could potentially reveal facts relevant to the determination of the instant pending 

motion for summary judgment. Although Plaintiff is free to request this information in discovery 

from Defendant, Plaintiff’s discovery requests are limited to relevant information under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) motion is DENIED. 

 2

 A Pitchess motion is the procedural method established in Pitchess v. Superior Court, 11 

Cal. 3d 531 (1974), and later codified by California Penal Code § 832.7 and California Evidence 

Code §§ 1043 and 1046, that allows for discovery of otherwise privileged personnel records. 

Case 4:14-cv-03309-DMR Document 22 Filed 04/22/15 Page 2 of 3
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

In any event, Plaintiff also requests a second extension of time in which to file his 

opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment up to and including May 15, 2015. 

Having read and considered Plaintiff’s request, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for a second extension of time is 

GRANTED. The time in which Plaintiff may file his opposition to Defendant’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment will be extended up to and including May 15, 2015. 

Defendant shall file a reply brief no later than fourteen (14) days after the date Plaintiff’s 

opposition is filed. 

This Order terminates Docket No. 17. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ______________________________________ 

DONNA M. RYU 

United States Magistrate Judge

April 22, 2015

Case 4:14-cv-03309-DMR Document 22 Filed 04/22/15 Page 3 of 3