Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02119/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02119-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment (Insurance)

---

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 

Lexington Insurance Company, a Delaware 

Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Scott Homes Multifamily, Inc., an Arizona 

corporation; and Silverbell 290 Limited 

Partnership, an Arizona Limited 

Partnership, 

Defendants. 

____________________________________ 

Silverbell 290 Limited Partnership, an 

Arizona Limited Partnership, individually 

and as the assignee of Defendant Scott 

Homes Multifamily, Inc., 

Counterclaimants, 

v. 

Lexington Insurance Company, a Delaware 

corporation, 

Counterdefendant. 

No. CV-12-02119-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Defendant/Counterclaimant Silverbell 290 Limited 

Partnership’s Notice of Motion and Rule 56(d) Motion to Continue Lexington Insurance 

Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 58). The Court now rules on the 

Motion. 

Case 2:12-cv-02119-JAT Document 71 Filed 08/07/13 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

I. BACKGROUND 

On October 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants. (Doc. 1). On 

October 31, 2012, Defendant Silverbell filed counterclaims against Plaintiff. (Doc. 10). 

On February 19, 2013, this Court held a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference and set the 

discovery deadline as February 7, 2014 and the dispositive motion deadline as April 18, 

2014. (Doc. 40). On June 17, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. In 

its Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff argues that its excess insurance policy (the 

“excess policy”) has not been triggered in this lawsuit because the excess policy requires 

that all primary insurance be exhausted before excess coverage is available. Plaintiff 

argues that summary judgment is appropriate because: (1) the Evanston Policy has not 

been exhausted, (2) all underlying limits applicable to Scott Homes’ liability arising out 

of the work of American, Labrum, and Paramount have not been exhausted, and (3) the 

amounts of individual judgments awarded against Scott Homes for the work of Design, 

Gypsum, Littleton, and Structural I are not covered under the excess policy. 

 In response, Defendant Silverbell seeks relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 56(d). Silverbell argues that additional fact discovery is necessary before it 

can respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. As a result, Silverbell requests 

a “realistic opportunity to pursue discovery relating to its theory of the case and 

defenses.” 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), 

When Facts Are Unavailable to the Nonmovant. 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 

Case 2:12-cv-02119-JAT Document 71 Filed 08/07/13 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

(3) issue any other appropriate order. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). 

 Where “a summary judgment motion is filed so early in the litigation, before a 

party has had any realistic opportunity to pursue discovery relating to its theory of the 

case, district courts should grant any Rule 56[d] motion fairly freely.” Burlington 

Northern Santa Fe R&R, Co. v. Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, 323 F.3d 767, 773-74 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted). The party requesting Rule 56(d) relief must show 

that: “(1) it has set forth in affidavit form the specific facts it hopes to elicit from further 

discovery; (2) the facts sought exist; and (3) the sought-after facts are essential to oppose 

summary judgment.” Family Home and Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage 

Corp., 525 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal citations omitted). “Failure to comply 

with these requirements is a proper ground for denying discovery and proceeding to 

summary judgment.” Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). 

III. ANALYSIS 

In its Rule 56(d) Motion, Silverbell claims that it needs the following discovery to 

respond to Lexington’s Motion for Summary Judgment: (1) Plaintiff’s underwriting 

guidelines and underwriting file; (2) depositions of Plaintiff’s claims handler and the 

claims handler’s supervisor; and (3) declarations relating to the payment by Evanston 

under its 2002 Evanston Primary Policy of its policy limits of one million dollars. 

 In Response, Plaintiff argues that Silverbell’s motion should be denied because 

Silverbell has not set forth, in an affidavit, the specific facts it hopes to elicit from further 

discovery, Silverbell has not established that such unidentified facts actually exist, and 

Silverbell fails to explain how the discovery is essential to defeat Plaintiff’s pending 

motion for summary judgment. 

 In its Reply, Silverbell lists what it deems to be specific facts that it seeks to obtain 

to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 67 at 4-8). 

 Silverbell has failed to meet the requirements to obtain relief under Rule 56(d). 

As argued by Plaintiff, Silverbell has not set forth, in an affidavit, the specific facts it 

Case 2:12-cv-02119-JAT Document 71 Filed 08/07/13 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

hopes to elicit from further discovery, has not established that such unidentified facts 

actually exist, and has not explained how the discovery is essential to defeat Plaintiff’s 

pending motion for summary judgment. Moreover, although Silverbell attempts to raise 

more specific facts in its reply, Silverbell still fails to meet the requirements of 56(d) 

because (1) such facts are not in the affidavit; (2) a party may not raise new arguments 

for the first time in its reply brief; and (3) the majority of the categories of facts sought by 

Silverbell seem to have little relation to the pending Motion for Summary Judgment and 

appear to be in the nature of a fishing expedition. 

 Nonetheless, the Court will allow Defendant Silverbell an additional 60 days from 

the date of this Order to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. In that 

time, it is incumbent on Defendant Silverbell to conduct targeted discovery. Such 

discovery must not be in the nature of a fishing expedition and any discovery disputes 

shall be brought to the Court’s attention immediately. All discovery disputes shall be 

brought as set forth in the Rule 16 Scheduling Order (Doc. 40 at 4). 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant/Counterclaimant Silverbell 290 Limited 

Partnership’s Notice of Motion and Rule 56(d) Motion to Continue Lexington Insurance 

Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 58) is granted as follows: 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Silverbell may have an additional 60 days from 

the date of this Order to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. In that 

time, it is incumbent on Defendant Silverbell to conduct targeted discovery. Such 

discovery must not be in the nature of a fishing expedition and any discovery disputes 

shall be brought to the Court’s attention immediately. 

 Dated this 6th day of August, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-02119-JAT Document 71 Filed 08/07/13 Page 4 of 4