Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_06-cv-00062/USCOURTS-almd-1_06-cv-00062-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

Plaintiff’s motion does not state what Rule of Civil Procedure it is brought pursuant to. 1

However, it is clear from the motion and the attached affidavit that the motion is brought pursuant

to Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LINDA BROOKS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) CASE NO. 1:06-cv-62-MEF

)

LAW OFFICE OF SAM STREETER, )

P.L.L.C., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File

Response to Defendants’ [sic] Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 21). 

On October 24, 2006, Defendants timely filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in

accordance with the deadline set by this Court’s March 27, 2006 Uniform Scheduling Order.

On October 25, 2006, the Court entered an Order (Doc. # 19) directing Plaintiff to file her

response to that motion by no later than November 9, 2006 and directing Defendants to file

their reply by no later than November 16, 2006. On November 8, 2006, filed the motion

seeking an extension of the deadline for her response. In support of that motion, Plaintiff

argues that the Court should grant her an extension because she has not been able to obtain

sufficient discovery since the parties have not yet been able to take depositions. She 1

requests that the court allow her an additional 45 days in which to file her response.

Case 1:06-cv-00062-MEF-TFM Document 24 Filed 11/09/06 Page 1 of 3
2

Rule 56(f) provides:

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 . . . 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.

The party opposing the motion must submit an affidavit that sets forth with particularity the

facts the party expects to discover and how those facts would create a genuine issue of

material fact. Harbert Int’l, Inc. v. James, 157 F.3d 1271, 1280 (11 Cir. 1998). “The th

nonmovant may not simply rely on vague assertions that additional discovery will produce

needed, but unspecified, facts, but must show the court how the stay will operate to permit

him to rebut, through discovery, the movant’s contentions.” Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F.2d

923, 931 (11th Cir. 1989) (quotations and citation omitted). The court must balance the

moving party’s demonstrated need for discovery against the burden of such discovery on the

opposing party. James, 157 F.3d at 1280. “The grant or denial of a continuance is within

the sound discretion of the trial court.” Barfield, 883 F.2d at 931.

Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit detailing the discovery needed and how it will aid

her in responding to the motion for summary judgment. Weighing Plaintiff’s need for

additional discovery against the burden on Defendants, the Court finds that Plaintiff is

entitled to some additional time to respond to the motion. The Court will therefore extend

the deadline for filing the response. However, the Court believes that Plaintiff is not entitled

to a 45-day extension. Rather, the Court will give Plaintiff until November 29, 2006, to file

Case 1:06-cv-00062-MEF-TFM Document 24 Filed 11/09/06 Page 2 of 3
3

her response.

It is therefore ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendants’ Motion

for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 21) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;

(2) Plaintiff will have until November 29, 2006 to file her response to the motion for

summary judgment;

(3) Defendant may file a reply brief on or before December 6, 2006, whereupon the

motion will be submitted without oral argument. 

DONE this 9 day of November, 2006. th

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00062-MEF-TFM Document 24 Filed 11/09/06 Page 3 of 3