Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00886/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00886-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN GALLAGHER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT

DISTRICT, CITY OF CORONADO,

and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 08cv0886 AJB (WVG)

ORDER REQUESTING

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION

This is a claim for retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”)

against the San Diego Unified Port District (“District”). The District moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff John Gallagher’s only remaining cause of action, retaliation

under the ADA, arguing the “but-for” standard of causation is applicable to the instant

case. The Court heard oral arguments on April 11, 2014 on the appropriate causation

standard applicable to Plaintiff’s claim and found Plaintiff’s ADA retaliation claim is

indeed governed by the but-for standard and the District did not waive its reliance on this

argument. (Doc. No. 96.) The Court granted Plaintiff an opportunity to supplement his

brief. However, Plaintiff’s supplemental brief requests a reopening of discovery

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). (Doc. No. 98.)

1 08cv0886

Case 3:08-cv-00886-AJB-WVG Document 100 Filed 05/13/14 Page 1 of 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

Additional information is required before the Court may rule on Plaintiff’s request. 

Pursuant to Rule 56(d), this Court has the discretion to either deny or continue a motion

for summary judgment “if a party opposing the motion shows by affidavit that, for

specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its position.” Thus, this

Court has discretion to continue this motion for summary judgment if opposing party

needs to discover essential facts. Cal. Union. Ins. Co. v. American Diversified Sav.

Bank, 914 F.2d 1271 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1088, 111 S. Ct. 966 (1991). 

A party must show how additional discovery would preclude summary judgment and

why a party cannot immediately provide “specific facts” demonstrating a genuine issue

of material fact. Mackey v. Pioneer Nat. Bank, 867 F.2d 520, 523-24 (9th Cir. 1989). 

The party requesting a continuance must identify by affidavit the specific facts that

further discovery would reveal, and explain why those facts would preclude summary

judgment. California v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Accordingly, the Court requests Plaintiff’s counsel to articulate exactly what

discovery is needed to warrant a Rule 56(d) continuance. Plaintiff must state what

specific depositions and/or documents he deems are necessary. Plaintiff must file his

supplemental declaration within ten (10) days from the date of this Order. The District

may then file objections within ten (10) days of Plaintiff’s declaration. No reply will be

filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 13, 2014

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

2 08cv0886

Case 3:08-cv-00886-AJB-WVG Document 100 Filed 05/13/14 Page 2 of 2