Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00340/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00340-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dennis L. Parker
Plaintiff
Yuba County Water District
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

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision *

without oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h). 

All subsequent references to “Rules” are to the Federal 1

Rules of Civil Procedure.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS L. PARKER, )

) 02:06-cv-0340-GEB-KJM

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

YUBA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, ) 

)

Defendant. )

)

Plaintiff moves for partial summary judgment under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 56(b). In response, Defendant requests a 1

Rule 56(f) continuance. For the reasons discussed below, the request

for a continuance is granted. 

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) provides a device for

litigants to avoid summary judgment when they have not had sufficient

time to develop affirmative evidence.” United States v. Kitsap

Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir. 2002). “A party

requesting a continuance pursuant to Rule 56(f) must identify by

affidavit the specific facts that further discovery would reveal, and

Case 2:06-cv-00340-GEB -KJM Document 61 Filed 08/21/06 Page 1 of 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

2

explain why those facts would preclude summary judgment.” Tatum v.

City and County of S.F., 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006).

If the affidavit reveals “a continuance is needed to obtain facts

essential to preclude summary judgment,” then “a district court should

continue [the] summary judgment motion.” State of Cal. v. Campbell,

138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998). 

In his motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff argues he is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law on his due process claim

because “there is no genuine dispute regarding any fact material to

that issue . . . .” (Pl.’s Not. of Mot. at 1-2.) Plaintiff asserts

he “worked pursuant to a contract providing that he would not be fired

without a valid reason,” but Defendant fired him “without having

engaged in any meaningful procedures designed to provide [him] with

notice and a fair hearing on the subject of his dismissal.” (Pl.’s

Compl. ¶ 15; Pl.’s Mem. of P. & A. at 2.) 

Defendant argues it cannot adequately respond to these

allegations without deposing Plaintiff, his physician, and certain

members of the Yuba County Water District Board of Directors. (Def.’s

Mot. for a Continuance at 2.) Plaintiff rejoins that Defendant “fails

to specifically identify any relevant information [it] expects to

elicit from any of the individuals it[] . . . desires to depose.” 

(Pl.’s Opp’n to the Mot. to Continue at 3.) However, Defendant

identified “an abundance of information that [could] show that the

termination of Plaintiff was factually and procedurally handled

correctly,” including whether “Plaintiff . . . ha[d] a contract

governing his employment[,]” whether Plaintiff was an “at-will

employee[,]” and whether “Plaintiff abandoned his job.” (Def.’s Mot.

for a Continuance at 3-5.)

Case 2:06-cv-00340-GEB -KJM Document 61 Filed 08/21/06 Page 2 of 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

Therefore, since Defendant has demonstrated discovery is

needed to obtain facts essential to preclude summary judgment, but no

discovery beyond the initial disclosures has been conducted, the

motion for a continuance is granted. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co.

v. Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck Reservation, 323 F.3d 767,

773 (9th Cir. 2003) (stating a district court should grant a rule

56(f) motion “fairly freely” if a party has not “had any realistic

opportunity to pursue discovery relating to its theory of the case”). 

Accordingly, the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is

continued to February 5, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. Any opposition to the

motion for summary judgment shall be filed no later than January 22,

2007; any reply shall be filed no later than January 29, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00340-GEB -KJM Document 61 Filed 08/21/06 Page 3 of 3