UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

CLIFFORD BAILEY, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:17-cv-332 

vs. 

VERSO CORPORATION, Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman 

 (Consent Case) 

 Defendant. 

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER AND ENTRY: (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S RULE 56(d) MOTION; (2) 

DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT 

INJUNCTION (DOC. 29) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING; (3) SETTING A 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 

PLEADINGS; AND (4) VACATING THE JULY 5, 2018 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

This civil case is before the Court following a status conference with the parties on June 

11, 2018. Doc. 32. At that time, pending before the Court, were two separate motions: (1) 

Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (doc. 19); and (2) Plaintiffs’ memorandum in 

opposition/motion for summary judgment (doc. 29). 

During the status conference with the Court on June 11, 2018, Defendant’s attorneys 

expressed their concern that Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was premature; that 

discovery was required to respond to the motion for summary judgment; and that Plaintiffs’ action 

is an attempt to submit to the Court matters outside the pleadings in opposing the Rule 12(c) 

motion. Following the status conference on June 11, 2018, Defendants moved for relief under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) to either strike or defer consideration of Plaintiffs’ motion for summary

judgment. Doc. 34. 
2 

The undersigned finds that Plaintiffs have appropriately filed a motion for summary 

judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b) (stating that, “[u]nless a different time is set by local rule or 

the court orders otherwise, a party may file a motion for summary judgment at any time until 30 

days after the close of all discovery”). Nevertheless, in an effort to efficiently manage the docket, 

the Court finds it appropriate to GRANT Defendant’s Rule 56(d) motion (doc. 34) because 

discovery has been stayed in this case to date, thus denying Defendant an opportunity for 

discovery. Accordingly, at this time, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING following full briefing and a decision on Defendant’s 

motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

Plaintiffs are ORDERED to separately file a memorandum in opposition to Defendant’s 

motion for judgment on the pleadings with 14 days from the entry of this Order. In doing so, 

Plaintiffs shall be mindful that, aside from a few exceptions, the Court’s review of a Rule 12(c) 

motion is limited to the allegations pled in the complaint. If Plaintiffs contend that matters outside 

the pleadings are appropriate for the Court to consider in deciding the Rule 12(c) motion, Plaintiffs 

shall cite appropriate authority in that regard. Defendants shall have 14 days from the filing of 

Plaintiffs’ separate memorandum in opposition to file their reply in support of the motion for 

judgment on the pleadings. 

 The telephone status conference set for July 5, 2018 is VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: July 3, 2018 s/ Michael J. Newman 

 Michael J. Newman 

 United States Magistrate Judge