### 14 43 CH API N ST REE T, LP, Plaintiff,
v. PNC BANK, NATI ONAL ASSOCIATI ON, De fe nd ant. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT

F OR THE D ISTRIC T OFCO LU M BIA

Civil Action No. 08-1532 ( CKK)

OR DE R (Jul y 31, 2009) P laintif f , 1 4 4 3 C h ap in S tr eet, L P , the o w n er an d d ev elo p er of a co n d o m iniu m p rojec t i n th e D is tric t o f

C o lu m b ia , b rin gs th is ca s e aga in s t D e f e n d a n t, P N C B a n k , N a tio n a l A s s o c ia tio n . A cco rdin g to P laintif

f , iten tered into a co n struc ti o n loan agr eem en t w it h the D ef en d an t ban k to prov i de co nstr ucti on f

i nan ci ng f

or Pl ai nti f

f’ s con do m i nium proje ct . Pl ai nti f f al l eg es t hat Def e nda nt wr ong f

ul l y s t oppe d f

undi ng t he pr oj e c t i n t he mi ddl e of c ons t r uc t i on, t he r e by br e a c hi ng t he pa r t i e s ’ a g r e e men t . Cur r e nt l y pe ndi ng be f or e t he Cour t i s De f

e nda nt ’ s [ 3] M ot i on to D ism iss o r, in th e A lt ern ative , f o r S u m m aryJ u d gm en t. Plain ti f f f il ed an O p p o siti o n to D e f e n d a n t’s M o tio n , argu in g, inter a li a , t hat Pl ai nti f f i s enti t l ed to discoverypu r suan t t o F ederal Rul e of Ci vi l Pr oc e dur e 56 ( f

)
. I n s uppo r t of

i t s Oppos i t i on, Pl a i nt i f f s ubmi t t e d a n a f

f i da vi t f r om Steven F. Sch w at , pri ncipal ow ner of t he P l ai nti f

f enti t y , 14 43 C hap i n S t r eet , L P (her ei naf t er “Sch w at A f

f
. ”)
. Def end ant subseq uen t l y f

i l ed a R eply
. I n ad dit i on , t he p ar t i es have f i l ed several
r e l a t e d mot i ons t ha t a r e a l s o n ow r i pe f orr e vi e w, s pe c i f

i c a l l y : ( 1) Pl a i nt i f

f’ s [ 15] M ot i on f

or L eave t o F i l e a Su r - R eplyw i t h respect t o D ef end ant’ s M oti on t o D i sm i ss, or i n the A l t er nati ve,

### 2

f orSu mmary Jud g men t , whi c h De f e nda nt op pos e s ; ( 2) De f e nda nt ’ s [ 14] M ot i on t o S t r i ke P o rt ion s o f

the S ch w at A f

f ida v it su b m it ted b y Plain ti f f in su p p o rt o f

it s O p p o siti o n to Def e nda nt ’ s M ot i on t o Di s mi s s , ori n t he Al t e r na t i ve , f orSu mmar y Jud g men t ; a nd ( 3) D ef end ant’ s [ 19 ] M oti on t o S t r i ke the A f f i dav i t s of

Pau l B
. K r ou g h an d S t even E. C ox sub m i t t ed byPl a i nt i f

f i n c onne c t i on wi t h i t s Oppos i t i on t o De f e nda nt ’ s M ot i on t o S t r i ke Po r t i ons of t he Sc hwa t Af

f i da vi t . Upon a s e a r c hi ng r e vi e w of t he pa r t i e s ’ s ubmi s s i ons , a ppl i c a bl e c a s e l a w, a nd the en ti re r eco rd o f

the ca se h erein , the C o u rt sh all G R A N T Plain ti f f’s r eq u est to tak e d isco v ery pur s ua nt t o Rul e 56 ( f

) , DENY W I THOU T P REJUD I CE De f e nda nt ’ s M ot i on t o Di s mi s s , ori n t he Al t e r na t i ve , f

orS um ma r y J ud g me nt , DE NY P l a i nt i f f’ s M ot i on t o F i l e a S ur - Re pl y , a nd DE NY D e f e n d a n t’s tw o M o tio n s to S trik e , f o r th e rea s o n s th a t f

o llo w . LEGAL STANDA RD A N D D I S C U S S I ON D ef en d an t has m o v ed to d ism iss P laintif f’s C o m p laint u n d er Fe d eral R u le of C ivil Pr oc e dur e 12 ( b) ( 6) , or , i n t he a l t e r na t i ve , f ors ummary j udg men t . I t i s we l l e s t a bl i s he d t ha t whe n,
on a Rul e 12 ( b) ( 6) mot i on, “ mat t e r s ou t s i de t he pl e a di ng s a r e pr e s e nt e d t o a nd not e xc l ude d b y t he c our t , t he mot i on mus t be t r e a t e d a s on e f ors ummar y j udg men t un de r Rul e 56
. ” F e d. R. Ci v. P
. 1 2 (d). D ef

en d an t has su b m it ted an d r elies ex ten siv elyu p o n m u lt iple aff ida v it s an d ex h ibits in
su p p o rt o f

it s m o ti o n . A cco rdin gl y , the C o u rt tr eats D ef en d an t’ s m o ti o n as o n e f o r su m m ary ju d gm e n t p u rs u a n t to R u le 5 6
. A s th e D .C . C irc u it h a s co n s is te n tly ca u tio n e d , s 

### ummary judgme nt “ordinarily

‘is proper only afte r the plaintiff ha s been g iven ade quate time for discovery .’” AmericableInt’l, Inc . v. Dep’ t of Navy , 1 2 9 F. 3 d

1 2 7 1 , 1 2 7 4 (D
. C
. C i r. 1 9 9 7 ) ( qu o t i n g First Chi cago Int’l v . United Exc h. Co. , 836 F.2d 1375, 1380 ( D.C. Cir. 1988)). Unde r F ederal Rule of Civil P roce dure 56( f),

### 3

a c ourt “ may de ny a mot ion fo r s umm ary

judgme nt o r o rd e r a

c ontin ua nc e to p e rm it d isc ov e ry

if the par ty opposing themotion adequately explains why , at that timepoint, it cannot present by aff idavit fac ts neede d to defe at the motion.” Strang v . U nite d S tates A rm s Co ntrol & Disarmament Age ncy , 8 64 F .2 d 8 59 , 8 61 (D .C. Cir . 1 98 9) ; Londrigan v. Fed. Bureau of Inve stigati on , 670 F.2d 1164, 1175 ( D.C. Cir. 1981). “[T] he purposeof Rule 56(f) is to prevent ‘ra ilroading ’ the non-movingparty through a pre mature motion for summar y judgme nt beforethe non-movingparty

has had theopportunity

to make full discover

y .” Dicke ns v. W

hole Foods Marke t Group, Inc. , Civ. No. 01-1054, 2003 WL21486821, at *2 n.5 (D.D .C. Mar. 18, 2003) (c i t i n g Ce lote

xCor p. v . Ca tre tt , 4 77 U. S. 3 17 , 3 26 (1 98 6) ). Th e dis tric t c ourt ha s d isc re tio n in deter mining whe ther it should permit additional discovery befor e the motion for summary judgme nt is resolved. Ste lla v . M ine ta , 284 F.3d 135, 147 ( D.C. Cir. 2002). Inth i s c a s e , D e f

e n d a nt ’ s m o t i o nf

o r s umm ar y j u d gm e ntw a s f

i l e d p r i o r t o d i s c o v e r

y. Plaintiff, in respondingto Defe ndant’s motion, has identified potential discove ry that is neede d to oppose Def

endant’ s motion for summary judgme nt, including (but not lim ited to): fac tual and
e xpe rt dis c ov e ry

re latin gto t

hea c c ur a c y

and va lid ity of thea pp raisa l r e lie d u

po n b y De fe nd ant i n its mot ion; the value of theproper ty at issue duringthe time period re levant to this case; the
rea sonablene ss of Def

endant’ s conduct in dec laringa non-mone tary defa ult without not ice or opportunity

to cure ; and the timing of Def endant’ s decision that Plaintiff was in def ault and what information Def

endant wa s awa

re of at that time. SeePl.’s Opp’n at 36-40 &Att. 3 (Schwat Aff.) ¶ 59. B ased on Plaintiff’s r epre sentations in both its Opposition and in the Schwat Af fi davit , th e Court

a gre e s th at r e so lut ion

of De fend ant’ s mo tio n f

or summa ry judgme nt i s premature at this t ime beca use discover

y has not yet bee n conducte d and De fenda nt’s motion

### As mentioned above , Def endant ha s also separ ately filed a motion to strike portions of 1 

### the Schwat Af

fidavit. SeeDef

.’s Mot. to Strike Schwat Aff., Doc ket No. [14] . Def endant sug g ests that cer

tain para graphs of

the af fidavit areinadmissible becauseSchwat lac ks persona l kn ow le dg e and

/or is n ot q ua lif ie d to re nd e r o pin ion s a s to c e rt a in s ub je c ts a nd that c e rt a in para graphs a lso contain inadmissible hearsa y . Id. ¶¶ 5- 8. Al tho ugh th e Court a gre e s th at c e rt a in pa rt s o f t heSc hw at A ff

ida vit do no t c on fo rm

wi th R ule56 ’s re qu ir e me nt t

hat a ff ida vit s in su pp or t of mot ion s f

or summa ry judgme nt “ mus t bema deon pe rs on a l kn ow le dg e , s e t out f a c ts that would be admissible in evidenc e, and showthat the af fiant is competent to testify on the matte rs state d, ” theCourt do e s n ot a gre e that all

of the mate rial conta ined in the par agraphs ide nti fi e d b y

De fe nd ant i s in a dmi ssible . F or pr e se nt p ur

po se s, the n, theCourt

wi ll s imp ly disreg ard thenon-complying por tions of Schwat’s Af

fidavit. Se eW

ill iam s v . D od

aro , 5 76 F. Supp. 2d 72, 78, n.2 (D.D.C. 2008). Ac cording ly , Def endant’ s [14] Motion to S trike the Schwat Affida vit is DENI ED. 4 inv olv e s a

numbe r o f d e ta ile d, dis pute d f a c tua l qu e sti on s. D e f e n d ant ’ s ar gum e nt s t o th e c o ntr ar y ar e w i th o utm e r i t . S o m e wh ati r o n i c a l l y, Def endant principally

argues that summary

judgme nt in its favor

is appropriate bec ause Plaintiff has “f ail[ed] to produce admissible evidence ,” instead submitting a n “Opposition and supporting paper s [that] are rife with hea rsay , unqualified opinions and other wise unsubstantiated c laims.” Def .’s Reply at 1-2. Of

course , it would be premature to grant De fenda nt’s motion for summary judgme nt on those grounds, as Plaintiff has not yet had the oppor tunity to uncover

the nec essar

y fac tual support for its arguments ag ainst summary judgme nt. Indeed, D efe ndant, in moving f or summary judgme nt, has relied he avily on various af

fidavits by

Def endant’ s own offic ers a

nd by individuals whom Defenda nt hired to conduc t appra isals of the prope rty at issue. See ge ne ra lly Def .’s MSJ . Plaintiff is entitl ed to test the asse rtions made in those af fidavits through discovery befor e beingforc ed to re spond to Defe ndant’s motion. Klayman v. J udicial W atch, Inc

. , Civ. Act. No. 06- 670, 2007 WL1034937, *12 (D.D.C. Apr . 3, 2007). In addition, Defe ndant contends that the Schwat Af fidavit submitted in support of Plaintiff’s reque st for discover y pursuant to Rule 56(f) is insufficient. Def .’s Reply at 11-12. A 1

### 5

pa rt y se e kin gthepr ote c tio n o f R ule56 (f ) “ mus t st ateby

a ff ida vit there a so ns why

heis una bleto prese nt the nece ssary

opposing material.” Cloverleaf Standardbred Owners Ass’n, Inc . v. Nat’l Bank of W

ashington , 6 99 F .2 d 1 27 4, 12 78 n. 6 ( D. C. C ir . 1 98 3) ; but see First Chicago Int’l , 836 F.2d at 1380 (holding that filing a n aff idavit is not essential to preserveRule 56(f) c ontention as long a s the district court wa s alerte d to the need f or fur ther discove ry

). The pa rty seeking additional discovery

bear s the burden of

identifying thefac ts to be discovere d that would cre ate a triable issue a

nd the re asons why

the par ty cannot produce thosefac ts in opposit ion to the motion. Byrd v. E

nvtl. Prot. Agency , 174 F.3d 239, 248 n.8 ( D.C. Cir. 1999). It must also show
a re asonable basis to sugg est that discover y might re veal tria

ble issues of fa ct. Carpenter v. Fe d. Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n , 1 74 F .3 d 2 31 , 2 37 (D .C. Cir . 1 99 9) . Pl a int if f h a s c e rt a inl y

me t th e se sta nd ard s. In th is c a se , Pl a int if f h a s n ot o nly

su bmi tte d th e Sc hw at A ff

ida vit in s up po rt

of its Opposition to Defenda

nt’s motion for summary

judgment, but it has also repeatedly emphasized throughout its Opposit ion its need to take discove ry with respec t to specific issues raised by Def endant that a

re ma terial to re solution of the pendingmotion for summary judgme nt. The Court is persuade d that Plaintiff’s filings, f airly rea d, sufficie ntly

demonstrate that the Court lacks a full rec ord conta ining a ll facts material to Plainti ff’ s claims that would permit it to make a fully informed de cision on the merits of De fenda nt’s motion and that Plainti ff ha s not been aff orded a sufficie nt opportunity

to test the Defe ndant’s cla ims and supporting e vidence
. Finally , Def

endant a sserts that a plaintiff ma y only invoke Rule 56(f) to obtain fac t discovery , and not to obtain expert opinion discovery . Def endant thus argues that, to the extent Plaintiff contends it needs a dditional tim e to obtain expert discover y , Plaintiff has not d e m o n s tr at e d

th atr e l i e f

un d e r R u l e 5 6 ( f ) i s a p p r o p r i at e . D e f

. ’ s R e p l y at1 1
- 1 2
. S i gn i f i c ant l y,

### 6

De fe nd ant c ite s n o c a se law f or thi s inte rp re tatio n o f R

ule56 (f ), and theCourt

is n ot s o persua ded. Reg ardle ss, it is rea dily appar ent that many , if not all, of the material fac ts relied upon by Def endant in its motion for summary judgment arein dispute and that Plaintiff has sufficie ntly

demonstrated that it needs additional time to uncover fac ts essential to the merits of its claim. Accordingly , the Court shall GRANT Plaintiff’s re quest for discove ry under Rule 56( f) and shall DENYDef

endant’ s Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice. Gi ve n th is c on c lus ion , th e Court e a sil y re so lve s th e tw o r e ma ini ngmot ion s n owbe fo reit,
name ly , Pl a int if

f’ s [15 ] Mot ion

fo r L e aveto F ilea

Sur -R e ply

and De fe nd ant’ s [19 ] Mot ion to Strike the Aff

idavits of Paul B. Krough and Steven F . Cox . First, as is evide nt from the Court’s decision above , the brief

ing r elated to Plaintiff’s r equest for Rule 56(f) disc overy

is sufficient for the Court to resolve the issue, a nd the Court there foreshall DENY Plaintiff’s Motion for L eave to File a Sur- Reply . Second, as should also be clea r from the above disc ussion, the Court has not relied upon or

considere d either the Krough Affidavit or the Cox Affidavit submi tted by Plaintiff in rea chingits conclusions. Rather, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Opposition and the Schwat Affida vit are the mselves suffic ient to demonstrate that r esolution of Def endant’ s Motion for Summary Judgment at this tim e is premature. Ac cording ly , thereis no need to strike the materia ls, as the af

fidavits wer e not re lied upon by the Court, and the Court shall there fore DENY D efe ndant’s Motion to Strike. CO NC LU SION For the re asons above , the Court shall GRANT Plaintiff’s re quest to take discove ry pursuant to Rule 56(f) and DENY WI THOUT PREJ UDI CE Def e nda nt ’ s [ 3] M ot i on f

or Summa r y Jud g men t . I n a ddi t i on, t he Cour t s ha l l DENY Def e nda nt ’ s [ 14] M ot i on t o S t r i ke

### 7

Por t i ons of

t he Sc hwa t Af

f i da vi t , Pl a i nt i f

f’ s [ 15] M ot i on f

orL e a ve t o F i l e a Su r - Rep l y , a nd D ef end ant [ 19 ] M oti on t o S t r i ke the K r ou g h an d C ox A f f i dav i t s. An app r op r i at e O r der
a c c ompa ni e s t hi s M e mor a ndum Opi ni on. Dat e : Jul y 31 , 20 09 / s / C O LLEE N K O LLA R -K O T E LLY U n ite d S ta te s D is tric t J u d ge