Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01259/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01259-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bob Ashworth
Defendant
Tom Becker
Defendant
Joe Brock
Defendant
Ken Brown
Defendant
Mike Cook
Defendant
County of El Dorado
Defendant
Jeff Dreyer
Defendant
Howard Jenks
Defendant
Brian Keefe
Defendant
Glen Klages
Defendant
Joe Lenseigne
Defendant
Tom Murdock
Defendant
Jeff Neiman
Defendant
John Nolan
Defendant
Artemis Papadakis
Defendant
Ray Rodriguez
Defendant
Geoffrey A. Schafer
Plaintiff
Mike Sylvestri
Defendant
Gordon Taylor
Defendant

Document Text:

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

GEOFFREY A. SCHAFER,

No. 2:06-cv-1259-MCE-DAD

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOE BROCK, BRIAN KEEFE, GLEN

KLAGES, JOE LENSEIGNE, JEFF

NEIMAN, JOHN NOLAN, ARTEMIS

PAPADAKIS, RAY RODRIGUEZ,

GORDON TAYLOR, BOB ASHWORTH,

MIKE COOK, JEFF DREYER, HOWARD

JENKS, TOM MURDOCK, MIKE

SYLVESTRI, COUNTY OF EL

DORADO, TOM BECKER, KEN BROWN,

DOES 1 THROUGH 20,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Through the present action, Plaintiff Geoffrey A. Schafer

(“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendants violated his civil rights

in the course of executing a search warrant. Specifically,

Plaintiff brings claims of excessive force and unlawful seizure

and arrest.

Case 2:06-cv-01259-MCE -DAD Document 49 Filed 10/31/07 Page 1 of 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

 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

2

Now before this Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment on all claims as to Defendants Bob Ashworth (“Ashworth”)

and the County of El Dorado (“County”) (collectively

“Defendants”). Also before this Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to

Suspend Hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

(hereinafter “Plaintiff’s Rule 56(f) Motion”), which Plaintiff

filed in response to Defendants’ Motion on grounds that

additional discovery is needed before any opposition can be

properly formulated. For the reasons set forth below,

Plaintiff’s Rule 56(f) Motion is GRANTED and Defendants’ Motion

for Summary Judgment is DENIED without prejudice as premature.1

BACKGROUND

On September 28, 2001, law enforcement officers from the

United States Drug Enforcement Agency, the California Bureau of

Narcotics, and the El Dorado County Sheriff, executed a valid

search warrant on Plaintiff’s home. According to the Complaint,

both Plaintiff, then 14 years old, and his mother

cooperated with the officers. Plaintiff contends that despite

their cooperation, the officers pointed guns at them and kept

them detained in handcuffs for approximately three hours. 

Plaintiff alleges that he was severely traumatized by these

events, and he timely commenced the present action about a year

after he turned eighteen on June 10, 2005.

Case 2:06-cv-01259-MCE -DAD Document 49 Filed 10/31/07 Page 2 of 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

3

Plaintiff filed his original complaint on June 8, 2006,

naming Does 1-20 as fictitious defendants. Plaintiff indicated

that he was ignorant of the true names of those defendants and

would amend his Complaint when he ascertained their names.

Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint on June 6,

2007, and an amended motion two days later. According to that

motion, he learned the names of the officers on May 2, 2007, after

Defendants responded to discovery requests. Plaintiff’s motion

was filed with a proposed First Amended Complaint which included

the newly-named Defendants as parties to this litigation.

While Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend was pending, Defendants

filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. In response to that Motion

and in lieu of any formal opposition, Plaintiff filed a Motion to

Suspend Hearing on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) on grounds that additional

discovery was required. This Court subsequently granted

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

was filed on August 21, 2007.

STANDARD

Rule 56(f) provides for continuance of a summary judgment

motion as follows:

(f) When Affidavits are Unavailable. 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 refuse the application for

judgment or 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.

Case 2:06-cv-01259-MCE -DAD Document 49 Filed 10/31/07 Page 3 of 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

4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). “A district court should continue a

summary judgment upon a good faith showing by affidavit that the

continuance is needed to obtain facts essential to preclude

summary judgment.” Weinberg v. Whatcom County, 241 F.3d 746, 750

(9th Cir. 2001) (citing California v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779

(9th Cir. 1998)). Parties seeking a continuance must show: “(1)

that they have set forth in affidavit form the specific facts

that they hope to elicit from further discovery, (2) that the

facts sought exist, and (3) that these sought-after facts are

‘essential’ to resist the summary judgment motion.” Campbell,

138 F.3d at 779.

Rule 56(f) confers on the court discretion to order that

additional discovery be completed before to summary judgment, or

to “make such order as is just” to “protect parties from a

premature grant of summary judgment.” Weinberg, 241 F.3d at 750. 

Although Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b) allows a defending party to move

“at any time” for summary judgment in its favor, “‘continuance of

a motion for summary judgment for purposes of discovery should be

granted almost as a matter of course.’” Burlington Northern

Santa FE R.R. Co. v. Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort

Peck Reservation, 323 F.3d 767, 773-774 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting

Wichita Falls Office Assoc. v. Banc One Corp., 978 F.2d 915, 919

n.4 (5th Cir. 1992)).

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01259-MCE -DAD Document 49 Filed 10/31/07 Page 4 of 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

5

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff begins his Rule 56(f) motion by noting that, as of

the date of its filing, August 10, 2007, nearly five months

remain for discovery, nearly ten months for filing dispositive

motions, and more than a year for trial. Plaintiff then argues

that further discovery is needed to determine the full extent of

the involvement of Defendants Ashworth and County in the

execution of the search warrant, and that further discovery has

not yet been conducted due to the previous unavailability of the

newly discovered defendant identities.

In his deposition, Ashworth testified that he was the “point

person” for the El Dorado County Sheriff, that he organized the

team members who participated in the raid, and that he supervised

the conduct of those officers. Also, Plaintiff has not yet been

able to identify which of the officers pointed guns at his head,

despite attempts to do so through discovery. Further, although

acknowledging that they handcuffed Plaintiff, the seizing

officers did not describe the length of time during which

Plaintiff was handcuffed. Plaintiff asserts that obtaining

discovery from the officers who conducted the seizure of

Plaintiff will enable him to show that Ashworth and the County

are in fact liable both on the excessive force and unreasonable

seizure claims, and thus that summary judgment should not be

entered in their favor.

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01259-MCE -DAD Document 49 Filed 10/31/07 Page 5 of 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

6

The Court agrees that this discovery appears directly

related to formulating Plaintiff’s opposition. In light of the

Court’s conclusion that additional discovery is appropriate to

allow Plaintiff to obtain facts essential to opposing summary

judgment, and based upon the amount of time remaining for

discovery, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is premature.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Rule 56(f)

Motion is GRANTED and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is

DENIED without prejudice as premature.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01259-MCE -DAD Document 49 Filed 10/31/07 Page 6 of 6