Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_17-cv-03241/USCOURTS-azd-2_17-cv-03241-1/pdf.json

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

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 

 Before the Court is Defendant’s Rule 56(d) Motion Re Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment on Claim for Declaratory Judgment Regarding Arbitrability of Dispute 

as to Michael Bird (Doc. 41), Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 42), and Defendant’s Reply (Doc. 

45). 

I. Background 

 On September 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court seeking declaratory 

judgment on various issues. (Doc. 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff asks the Court to declare that 

Plaintiff, as a non-party to an agreement made between Plaintiff’s company, Bird Medical, 

LLC and Defendant, he is not subject to the arbitration provision therein. (Doc. 1 ¶ 39.) He 

also asks the Court to declare that he is not the alter ego of his company. (Doc. 1 ¶ 40.) 

 On May 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment as to the 

arbitrability of Plaintiff (Doc. 29), and Defendant filed a motion to stay briefing on that 

motion (Doc. 31). On June 2, 2018, Defendant filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s summary 

judgment motion, which also served as Defendant’s response to that motion. (Doc. 36.) On 

Michael Bird, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

DJO, LLC, 

Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-17-03241-PHX-SPL 

ORDER 

 

Case 2:17-cv-03241-SPL Document 46 Filed 03/01/19 Page 1 of 6
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 

November 30, 2018, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to strike and motion to stay 

briefing as moot and ordered supplemental briefing on Plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment as to the issue of alter ego status. (Doc. 40.) On December 13, 2018, Defendant 

filed this Rule 56(d) motion in response to the Court’s supplemental briefing order 

regarding Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 41.) On December 26, 2018, 

Plaintiff responded (Doc. 42), and on January 8, 2019, Defendant replied (Doc. 45). 

II. Discussion 

 Defendant argues that it cannot, at this time, file a supplemental brief regarding the 

issue of alter ego status because the parties never engaged in discovery in this case. (Docs. 

41, 45.) Rather, Defendant argues that the parties apparently decided to conserve resources 

and only conduct discovery in the underlying arbitration case as they waited for this Court 

to rule on two motions. (Doc. 45 at 1.) Therefore, Defendant argues that it is disingenuous 

for Plaintiff to allege that it failed to engage in discovery here when it diligently prosecuted 

its claims in the arbitration, and it was actually Plaintiff who essentially refused to 

participate in discovery. (Doc. 41 at 4-5.) Thus, Defendant argues the Court should not 

reward Plaintiff for failing in his discovery duties in the arbitration and for now attempting 

to use the lack of discovery in this case to his advantage. (Doc. 45 at 6.) In any event, 

however, Defendant argues that it has put forth evidence sufficient to withstand summary 

judgment, and, therefore, the Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. 45 at 4-5.) 

Additionally, Defendant asks the Court to allow discovery on the issue of alter ego status 

and to extend the deadline for dispositive motions as to that issue. (Doc. 41.) 

 Plaintiff does not address the parties’ alleged “informal agreement,” and, instead, 

argues that Defendant did not seek discovery in this case nor sought an extension of the 

discovery or dispositive motion deadlines. (Doc. 42.) He argues that Defendant cannot now 

file a Rule 56(d) motion arguing he was unable to take discovery when he utterly failed to 

engage in it or ask for extensions before filing a response. (Doc. 42.) Further, Plaintiff 

argues that this Court should not deny his motion for summary judgment because he has 

put forth evidence of his alter ego claim—an affidavit from Plaintiff stating that he does 

Case 2:17-cv-03241-SPL Document 46 Filed 03/01/19 Page 2 of 6
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 

not co mingle funds, etc.—and that Defendant can present no evidence to rebut it. (Doc. 

42.) 

III. Analysis 

 A. Standard 

“Rule 56(d) offers relief to a litigant who, faced with a summary judgment motion 

shows the court by affidavit or declaration that ‘it cannot present facts essential to justify 

its opposition.’” Roosevelt Irrigation Dist. v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & 

Power Dist., No. 2-10-CV-290-DAE-BGM, 2016 WL 3613278, at *1 (D. Ariz. Feb. 22, 

2016) (quoting Michelman v. Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 685 F.3d 887, 899 (9th Cir. 

2012)). “Rule 56(d) is in place ‘to ensure that parties have a reasonable opportunity to 

prepare their case.’” Id. (quoting Colson v. Maghami, No. 08–2150–PHW, 2010 WL 

2744682, at *14 (D. Ariz. July 9, 2010)). “When determining whether to grant a Rule 56(d) 

motion, the Court should consider whether denying or deferring the motion for summary 

judgment would promote greater justice.” Id. The court should consider: (1) whether a 

party has failed to diligently pursue discovery before summary judgment; (2) whether 

further discovery would be futile; and (3) whether the parties complied with the procedural 

requirements. Id., at * 2. 

 B. Discussion 

 Preliminarily, the Court agrees that discovery is severely lacking in this case.1

 The 

docket shows that the parties exchanged MIDP responses (Docs. 20, 21), Plaintiff 

supplemented his response on the last day of the discovery deadline (Doc. 28), and he filed 

a motion for summary judgment on the last day of the dispositive motion deadline (Doc. 

29). Thus, Defendant was or should have been on notice that at least Plaintiff was adhering 

to deadlines and prosecuting this case. However, in response to Plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment, Defendant did file a motion to stay its’ briefing because the parties 

 

1

 It is precisely this lack of evidence that prompted this Court to delay ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

56(e). (See Doc. 40.) 

Case 2:17-cv-03241-SPL Document 46 Filed 03/01/19 Page 3 of 6
4 

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 

were attempting to conduct discovery in the underlying arbitration. (Doc. 31.) In that 

motion, Defendant noted that the parties were moving forward with the case in the 

arbitration because the arbitrator believed he had jurisdiction over Plaintiff, and this Court 

had not yet ruled on the relevant motion finding otherwise. (See Doc. 31.) Defendant also 

stated that Plaintiff had filed a largely identical summary judgment motion in the arbitration 

and, thus, to avoid issues of conflicting determinations between this Court and the 

arbitrator, Defendant sought a status conference to discuss the discovery and forum issues. 

(See Doc. 31.) On June 2, 2018, Defendant filed a motion to strike, which also served as 

his response to Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. (Doc. 36.) The Court denied 

Defendant’s motion to stay briefing as moot and Defendant’s motion to strike on November 

30, 2018, as the Court ordered the parties to further brief the alter ego issue, pursuant to 

Rule 56(e). (See Doc. 40.) 

 After thoroughly reviewing the record in this case and taking into consideration the 

evidence proffered by Defendant in his Rule 56(d) motion, the Court will grant Defendant’s 

motion. In doing so, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment without 

prejudice and will allow discovery to reopen as to the limited issue of alter ego status. The 

Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendant should have filed something in this case to either 

extend the discovery deadline or otherwise inform the Court of the issues taking place in 

the arbitration prior to the close of discovery. However, it appears that Defendant did not 

seek the extension of a discovery deadline because it was under the impression that the 

parties agreed to fully prosecute this case in the arbitration while they waited for this 

Court’s ruling on certain motions to the contrary.2

 

 Though the Court is puzzled by Defendant’s assumption, Plaintiff does not deny 

that it “informally agreed” to conduct the bulk of discovery in the underlying arbitration. 

Further, it is clear that discovery in the arbitration was and is, frankly, a mess, and that 

 

2

 The Court notes, though, that simply because the parties are also involved in 

a related arbitration case does not relieve the parties from their duties in this case, which 

involve adhering to deadlines and informing the Court of “informal agreements” that a party believes could potentially affect this case’s prosecution. 

Case 2:17-cv-03241-SPL Document 46 Filed 03/01/19 Page 4 of 6
5 

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 

Plaintiff is at least half at fault for this problem. (See generally Doc. 41, Ex. 1; Doc. 45, 

Exs. C, D.) Indeed, the arbitrator recently issued a preliminary order addressing the serious 

discovery issues, to include allowing Defendant to conduct a forensic examination of 

Plaintiff’s company’s computers and setting a “drop dead” date for discovery production. 

(Doc. 45, Ex. D at 4.) More critically, the arbitrator also preliminarily denied Defendant’s 

motion to compel production of the financial information relevant here because of this 

Court’s stay as to Plaintiff. (Doc. 45 at 5-6; Doc. 45, Ex. D at 5.) 

 Moreover, the Court finds that Defendant did not “sit on its right to engage in 

discovery prior to filing this motion.” Roosevelt, 2016 WL 3613278, at *2. It is true that 

Defendant did not vigorously pursue discovery in this Court, but as already discussed, 

Defendant vigorously pursued discovery in the forum it believed the parties were rightly 

proceeding in (which the Court will credit, even though it is admonishing Defendant for its 

assumption regarding discovery and deadlines in this case). Though Defendant did not file 

this Rule 56(d) motion before it filed its response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment, Defendant did attempt to inform the Court of these issues in its motion to stay 

briefing on May 11, 2018 when it sought a telephonic conference and again in its motion 

to strike Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. In any event, Defendant has made it 

clear now, in response to the Court’s invitation and before it entered a ruling on the 

summary judgment motion, to explain the lack of evidence in this case. 

 Thus, the Court finds that it would be unjust under the facts here to grant summary 

judgment on the issue of alter ego status. Defendant has produced evidence showing that 

Plaintiff essentially neglected his duties in discovery, albeit, in the arbitration, and that the 

discovery sought is relevant to the claim at issue here. In other words, Defendant has put 

forth evidence explaining the lack of discovery in this case and points to the specific, 

relevant evidence that could very well overcome Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment 

on the issue of alter ego status, if allowed to pursue that limited discovery. Indeed, Plaintiff 

argues he is not his company’s alter ego, and Defendant argues that he is—and it is Plaintiff 

who would have possession of the relevant materials on this issue. Moreover, the Court 

Case 2:17-cv-03241-SPL Document 46 Filed 03/01/19 Page 5 of 6
6 

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 

declines to rely on Plaintiff’s conclusory, self-serving affidavit as the only piece of 

evidence to support a finding of summary judgment on the alter ego issue. This is especially 

true where the granting of summary judgment on this issue would have significant 

consequences not only in this case, but in the arbitration. Thus, the Court finds that granting 

summary judgment on these facts would not promote the policy of deciding cases on their 

merits and that “denying ... the motion for summary judgment would promote greater 

justice.” Roosevelt, 2016 WL 3613278, at *1. 

IV. Conclusion 

 Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Court grants Defendant’s Rule 56(d) 

motion. Thus, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment without prejudice

and will extend the discovery, dispositive, and good faith settlement talk deadlines. 

Consequently, the parties are to engage in discovery and are instructed to bring any issues 

to the Court’s attention only after the parties have conferred in good faith to resolve the 

issue without the Court’s intervention. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. That Defendant’s Rule 56(d) motion (Doc. 41) is granted; 

2. That Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 29) is denied without 

prejudice, pursuant to Rule 56(d)(1); 

3. That the discovery deadline is March 22, 2019; 

4. That the good faith settlement deadline is April 3, 2019; and 

5. That the dispositive motion deadline is April 12, 2019.

 Dated this 1st day of March, 2019. 

Honorable Steven P. Logan 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:17-cv-03241-SPL Document 46 Filed 03/01/19 Page 6 of 6