Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01566/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01566-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

DEBORAH STAMPFLI,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUSANVILLE SANITARY DISTRICT, a 

political subdivision of the 

State of California; STEVE J. 

STUMP, in his individual and 

official capacities; ERNIE 

PETERS, in his individual and 

official capacities; DAVID 

FRENCH, in his individual and 

official capacities; KIM ERB, in 

his individual and official 

capacities; MARTY HEATH, in his 

individual and official 

capacities; DOES I-V, inclusive, 

BLACK & WHITE CORPORATIONS I-V; 

and ABLE & BAKER COMPANIES, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-01566-WBS-DMC

ORDER

----oo0oo----

Defendant Steve J. Stump moved for summary judgment in 

this action and noticed the motion to be heard on May 2, 2022. 

Case 2:20-cv-01566-WBS-DMC Document 87 Filed 05/04/22 Page 1 of 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

2

(Docket No. 72.) In her opposition, plaintiff requested

additional discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

56(d). (Docket No. 81.) 

Rule 56(d) provides:

If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, 

for specified reasons, it cannot present facts 

essential to justify its opposition, the court may:

(1) defer considering the motion or deny it;

(2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or 

to take discovery; or

(3) issue any other appropriate order.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). Although the opposition explains many of 

the reasons why plaintiff cannot present facts essential to 

justify her opposition, in his reply, Stump challenged 

plaintiff’s request primarily because it was not submitted via

“affidavit or declaration” as stated in Rule 56(d). (Docket No. 

83.) 

In response, plaintiff moved for leave to supplement 

her opposition with a declaration from her counsel in order to 

comply fully with Rule 56(d). (Docket No. 85.) She also sought 

to provide a declaration from Randy O’Hern, former General 

manager of Susanville Sanitary District. (Id.)

At the beginning of the May 2 hearing on Stump’s 

motion, before any argument had occurred, counsel for Stump 

objected to plaintiff’s motion for leave to supplement her 

opposition. He did so on the grounds that, pursuant to Local 

Rule 230(m), “no additional memoranda, papers, or other materials 

may be filed” after a reply “without prior Court approval,” and 

plaintiff had not obtained such approval. E.D. Cal. Loc. R. 

230(m). Nor, counsel argued, did either of two exceptions within

Case 2:20-cv-01566-WBS-DMC Document 87 Filed 05/04/22 Page 2 of 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

3

that rule apply. See id. at 230(m)(1)-(2) (allowing, after the 

reply and without leave of court, the filing of (1) objections to 

“new evidence . . . submitted with the reply brief” or (2) “a 

notice of supplemental authority to bring the Court’s attention” 

to a new “relevant judicial opinion”). 

As explained at the hearing, the court does not deem it 

appropriate to reject plaintiff’s request for discovery based 

upon a technicality. Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 230(m), 

plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the requested supplements to 

her opposition (Docket No. 85) is hereby GRANTED. 

No later than May 9, 2022, plaintiff shall file a 

declaration from counsel that complies with Rule 56(d). That 

declaration shall contain a list detailing the specific discovery 

plaintiff seeks at this stage, including the names of any 

individuals plaintiff seeks to depose and any other discovery 

plaintiff believes is necessary to respond to defendant’s motion. 

For each item on that list, the declaration shall include an 

explanation of why the requested discovery is material to the 

court’s determination of qualified immunity, which is the basis 

of Stump’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff may also refile the O’Hern declaration concurrently with the new declaration 

from plaintiff’s counsel.

No later than May 16, 2022, defendant Stump may provide 

briefing to the court addressing whether plaintiff’s request for 

discovery should be granted and responding to the O’Hern 

declaration.

A hearing on plaintiff’s request for discovery is 

HEREBY SET for May 31, 2022, at 1:30 P.M. via videoconference. 

Case 2:20-cv-01566-WBS-DMC Document 87 Filed 05/04/22 Page 3 of 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

4

Following that hearing, a hearing on Stump’s motion for summary 

judgment will be reset, accounting for the time needed to take 

discovery, if such discovery is ordered.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2022

Case 2:20-cv-01566-WBS-DMC Document 87 Filed 05/04/22 Page 4 of 4