Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_07-cv-00436/USCOURTS-alsd-2_07-cv-00436-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

1

“Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that the party

cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify the party’s

opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or may order a continuance

to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or

may make such other order as is just.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM D. SUDDUTH, etc., )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 07-0436-WS-C

 )

EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE )

SOCIETY, etc., et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the defendants’ motion under Rule 56(f)1

 to

continue the response deadline to the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. 

(Doc. 23). The plaintiff was extended the opportunity to respond, (Doc. 24), but elected

not to do so, and the motion is ripe for resolution.

“A Rule 56(f) motion must be supported by an affidavit which sets forth with

particularity the facts the moving party expects to discover and how those facts would

create a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment. [citation omitted] 

Whether to grant or deny a Rule 56(f) motion for discovery requires the court to balance

the movant’s demonstrated need for discovery against the burden the discovery will place

on the opposing party.” Harbert International, Inc. v. James, 157 F.3d 1271, 1280 (11th

Cir. 1998). 

The complaint alleges that the defendants issued a disability income overhead

expense policy and/or adjusted the plaintiff’s claim under that policy. The complaint

Case 2:07-cv-00436-WS-C Document 30 Filed 12/17/07 Page 1 of 3
-2-

alleges that the defendants terminated payments under the policy once the plaintiff

dissolved his original practice, in which he was a part owner, and became an employee of

another practice. According to the complaint, the defendants incorrectly maintain that the

policy applies only if the insured is an owner and not if he is an employee. The complaint

asserts several tort claims, but the plaintiff has moved for partial summary judgment only

as to his claim for breach of contract. He seeks partial summary judgment on that claim

in the amount of $281,302.26, including policy benefits plus interest. (Doc. 20 at 14 &

Exhibit 8 at 2, ¶¶ 5-6).

By affidavit the defendants assert that they received discovery responses in

November 2007 indicating the plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract may be preempted

by ERISA, and the e-mails they attach to their motion do suggest the existence of a

question as to the source of funds used to pay the policy premiums. The affidavit also

asserts the need for discovery concerning the expenses for which the plaintiff is seeking

reimbursement in his motion for partial summary judgment to determine the extent to

which they fall within the policy’s coverage. On their face, these assertions furnish

appropriate grounds for delaying ruling on the plaintiff’s motion, establishing the

defendants’ “demonstrated need for discovery.” The plaintiff, who did not respond to the

instant motion, has identified no “burden the discovery will place” on him, and the Court

detects none. This is especially so since the defendants propose to complete the

necessary discovery and respond to the plaintiff’s motion by January 31, 2008, well

before the discovery period established by previous order expires. 

For the reasons set forth above, the defendants’ motion to continue is granted. 

The briefing schedule previously entered, (Doc. 21), is superseded as follows. The

defendants are ordered to file and serve any response to the plaintiff’s motion for partial

summary judgment on or before January 31, 2008. The plaintiff is ordered to file and

serve any reply on or before February 14, 2008. The Court will take the motion for

partial summary judgment under submission on February 15, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00436-WS-C Document 30 Filed 12/17/07 Page 2 of 3
-3-

DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of December, 2007.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00436-WS-C Document 30 Filed 12/17/07 Page 3 of 3