Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00092/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00092-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANET ORLANDO, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

CAROLINA CASUALTY INSURANCE )

COMPANY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CIV F 07-0092 AWI SMS

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’

RULE 56(f) REQUEST FOR

CONTINUANCE, VACATING

MARCH 3, 2008, HEARING

DATE, AND PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and

Defendants’ Rule 56(f) request for continuance. Both parties have filed declarations regarding

Defendants’ Rule 56(f) request. Hearing on the motion for summary judgment is set for March

3, 2008. The October 17, 2007, scheduling order set trial for May 12, 2008, and set the nonexpert discovery cut-off for January 11, 2008. Plaintiff was allowed to amend her complaint to

add Alarm One as a defendant on December 11, 2007.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s motion is premature since a new defendant, Alarm One,

has only recently been served, but has yet to answer. Defendants further argue that they have

propounded discovery to Plaintiff, need to take Plaintiff’s deposition, and will need to conduct

discovery with respect to Alarm One. Without this discovery, Defendants maintain that they

cannot intelligently defend against Plaintiff’s motion. Finally, Defendants argue that, when

Case 1:07-cv-00092-AWI -SMS Document 66 Filed 02/13/08 Page 1 of 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

The Court will not grant Defendants’ request for an additional 90 days of discovery. That will be a 1

question for the Magistrate Judge as part of the new case management conference.

2

Alarm One was added, they perhaps mistakenly believed that a new scheduling order would be

entered, including new dates for dispositive motions and discovery. Based on that

understanding, Defendants propounded discovery on Plaintiffs on January 25, 2008. Further,

Plaintiff herself propounded discovery on January 16, 2008, and has outstanding depositions of

Defendants which are scheduled to occur out of state. 

Plaintiff argues that Defendants have conducted no timely discovery, even though they

had the opportunity to do so, and had indicated that little discovery was necessary. Defendants’

request should denied as no additional discovery is needed. 

The scheduling order in this case set the discovery cut-off date for January 11, 2008. 

Prior to January 11, 2008, it does not appear that Defendants conducted any discovery, even

though Defendants are expected to do so in a diligent manner. A party’s failure to diligently

pursue discovery is an accepted ground for denying a Rule 56(f) motion. See Nidds v. Schindler

Elevator Corp., 113 F.3d 912, 921 (9th Cir. 1996). Nevertheless, Plaintiff only recently added

Alarm One to this case. Given Alarm One’s role in the events leading up to this lawsuit, it is

unclear why Alarm One has only now been added. Irrespective, since Alarm One has been

added, a new scheduling order, including a new trial date, will have to be entered. Additionally,

the Court finds it significant that both sides have propounded discovery after January 11, 2008. 

This indicates that the facts have not been properly developed, additional discovery is needed,

and the parties may have been anticipating a new scheduling order in light of the addition of

Alarm One. In light of these considerations, the Court will grant Defendants’s Rule 56(f)

motion.1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ Rule 56(f) motion is GRANTED in part;

Case 1:07-cv-00092-AWI -SMS Document 66 Filed 02/13/08 Page 2 of 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 3

2. The March 3, 2008, hearing is VACATED;

3. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED, without prejudice, as premature;

and

4. Once Alarm One appears, the parties will go forthwith before the Magistrate Judge to set

additional discovery deadlines as part of the new case management conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00092-AWI -SMS Document 66 Filed 02/13/08 Page 3 of 3