Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02272/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02272-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARBARA JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC et al

Defendant. /

No C 08-2272 VRW

ORDER

In opposition to defendant Globe Aviation Services

Corporation’s (“Globe”) motion for summary judgment, (Doc #68),

plaintiff requests a continuance pursuant to FRCP 56(f) to allow

her to conduct further discovery. 

Rule 56(f) provides that “[i]f a party opposing the

motion shows by affidavit that, for specified reasons, it cannot

present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may 

* * * order a continuance to enable affidavits to be obtained,

depositions to be taken, or other discovery to be undertaken.” To

obtain a continuance under Rule 56(f), parties must establish: “(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’

Case 3:08-cv-02272-VRW Document 85 Filed 01/08/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

to resist the summary judgment motion.” State of Cal v Campbell,

138 F3d 772, 779 (9th Cir 1998). 

While it is true that plaintiff’s declaration sets forth

her alleged difficulties in obtaining discovery from Globe,

plaintiff fails to identify any specific facts or particular

factual issues material to her opposition that she hopes further

discovery would produce. At a hearing on January 7, 2010,

plaintiff’s counsel was given an opportunity to supplement his

claim that further discovery was necessary in order to oppose

Globe’s summary judgment motion. Counsel again failed to identify

specific information that further discovery would likely produce. 

Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the 

requirements of FRCP 56(f) in that she did not specify what

evidence she sought to discover that might have precluded summary

judgment, plaintiff's FRCP 56(f) declaration fails to justify her

failure to oppose Globe’s summary judgment motion. 

Plaintiff shall file her opposition to Globe’s motion for

summary judgment on or before February 11, 2010. Globe may file

its reply on or before February 25, 2010, at which time the matter

will be submitted with no further hearing unless ordered by the

court.

Northwest Airlines’ motion for summary judgment will be

heard at 10 AM on March 11, 2010. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02272-VRW Document 85 Filed 01/08/10 Page 2 of 2