IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ALEX MADRID, §

 § 

Plaintiff, §

 § Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-0982-D

VS. §

 §

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § 

 §

Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 AND ORDER 

In this medical malpractice suit alleging claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act,

28 U.S.C. 1346(b), pro se plaintiff Alex Madrid (“Madrid”) requests a pretrial settlement

conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and moves for partial summary judgment. Defendant

United States of America (the “government”) opposes the request and motion and moves for

a continuance of the partial summary judgment motion under Rule 56(d). For the reasons

that follow, the court grants the government’s motion for a Rule 56(d) continuance and

denies as premature Madrid’s request for a settlement conference.

I

Madrid filed this action on May 3, 2022, alleging claims for negligence in connection

with the diagnosis and treatment of various heart and lung conditions at the Dallas Veterans

Affairs Medical Center. On July 28, 2022 the court entered a scheduling order (“Scheduling

Order”) that, in pertinent part, set February 1, 2023 as the deadline for designating expert

witnesses, June 1, 2023 as the deadline for completing discovery, and July 3, 2023 as the

Case 3:22-cv-00982-D Document 28 Filed 01/27/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID 943
deadline for filing motions for summary judgment.

On October 11, 2022, just over one month after the government filed its answer to

Madrid’s first amended complaint (“amended complaint”),1

 Madrid filed a request for a

pretrial settlement conference pursuant to Rule 16(a). The government opposes this request,

contending that it is diligently investigating Madrid’s claims, that it will not be in a position

to meaningfully discuss settlement until at least receiving some preliminary analysis from

medical experts, and that alternative dispute resolution or a court-supervised settlement

conference would be beneficial after expert disclosures.

On November 1, 2022 Madrid filed a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking

judgment on counts 3 and 4 of his amended complaint. In the motion, Madrid acknowledges

that discovery will not close under the Scheduling Order until June 1, 2023; he maintains,

nevertheless, that “[t]here can be no genuine dispute as to any material fact for failure to

inform, diagnose or treat plaintiff for [pulmonary hypertension or pulmonary fibrosis].” P.

Br. (ECF No. 21) at 3, 6. In response to Madrid’s motion, the government moves to defer

consideration of, or to deny, the motion under Rule 56(d).2

 Madrid opposes the

government’s motion. The court is deciding the request and motion on the briefs.

1

Madrid filed his amended complaint on August 24, 2022.

2

The government filed its first motion on November 22, 2022, docketed as ECF No.

23. It amended the motion later on the same date, docketed as ECF No. 25, because in the

first version it inadvertently failed to include appendix citations and a certificate of

conference. ECF No. 25 at 1 n.1. The government states that the court may ignore the

version docketed as ECF No. 23. Id.

- 2 -

Case 3:22-cv-00982-D Document 28 Filed 01/27/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID 944
II

The court grants the government’s Rule 56(d) motion to defer consideration of

Madrid’s motion for partial summary judgment.

“[Rule 56(d)] is an essential ingredient of the federal summary judgment scheme and

provides a mechanism for dealing with the problem of premature summary judgment

motions.” Parakkavetty v. Indus Int’l Inc., 2004 WL 354317, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 12,

2004) (Fitzwater, J.) (citing Owens v. Estate of Erwin, 968 F. Supp. 320, 322 (N.D. Tex.

1997) (Fitzwater, J.) (referring to former Rule 56(f)). Rule 56(d) functions as a “safe harbor”

that has been “built into the rules so that summary judgment is not granted prematurely.” 

Union City Barge Line, Inc. v. Union Carbide Corp., 823 F.2d 129, 136 (5th Cir. 1987)

(referring to Rule 56(f)). “[Rule 56(d) ] motions are broadly favored and should be liberally

granted.” Culwell v. City of Fort Worth, 468 F.3d 868, 871 (5th Cir. 2006). 

The government has established through the declaration of Assistant United States

Attorney George M. Padis that, although it has diligently pursued discovery, it cannot yet

present the expert testimony that is essential to justify its opposition to Madrid’s motion for

partial summary judgment. Accordingly, viewing the government’s motion favorably and

with the liberality that the law requires, the court concludes under the circumstances of this

case that the government should not be required to respond to Madrid’s motion for partial

summary judgment until it has had sufficient time to conduct its own fact and expert

discovery. The government must therefore file its opposition response to Madrid’s motion

no later than June 1, 2023. The motion for partial summary judgment will be statistically

- 3 -

Case 3:22-cv-00982-D Document 28 Filed 01/27/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID 945
closed at this time and reopened on the date the government files its opposition response. 

Madrid’s reply brief in support of his motion for partial summary judgment will be due 14

days after the response is filed. See N.D. Tex. Civ. R. 7.1(f).

III

Madrid’s request for a pretrial settlement conference is denied as premature. 

This court’s practice is not to order parties to participate in settlement conferences too

early in the litigation, when at least one side thinks the process is premature. In its

experience, such efforts rarely result in settlement, but almost always increase the parties’

costs and delay the litigation. The government opposes a settlement conference at this time,

contending that the government “will require the assistance of medical experts to assess

Madrid’s claims.” D. Br. (ECF No. 20) at 2. The court therefore denies Madrid’s motion. 

The court reminds the parties, however, of their obligations under N.D. Tex. Civ. R.

16.3(a): “Parties in a civil action must make good-faith efforts to settle. Settlement

negotiations must begin at the earliest possible time, well in advance of any pretrial

conference.” Consistent with Rule 16.3(a), the court will entertain a request for a settlement

conference later in the case, assuming the parties have not already engaged in settlement

discussions on their own.

- 4 -

Case 3:22-cv-00982-D Document 28 Filed 01/27/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID 946
* * * 

The court grants the government’s Rule 56(b) motion for a continuance and defers and

statistically closes Madrid’s motion for partial summary judgment. The court denies

Madrid’s request for a pretrial settlement conference as premature.

SO ORDERED.

January 27, 2023.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

SENIOR JUDGE

- 5 -

Case 3:22-cv-00982-D Document 28 Filed 01/27/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID 947