2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-23-2010 

# S t eph anie R

it chie v . W a chovi a C orp P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-1761

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " S t ep h a nie R

it chie v . W a chovi a C orp " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 908. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/908NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 08- 1761

_____________ S T E P H A N IE L . R IT C H IE ; S C O T T D . R IT C H IE , A p p e llan ts v. W A C H O V IA C O R P O R A T IO N , d /b / a WACHOV I A B ANK, N. A. R IC H A R D D E L U C A , c / o WACHOV I A C OR P OR AT I ON O n A p p e a l F ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( 06- cv- 05658) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le S tew a rt D a lze ll Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 11, 2010 B efore: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S , and G R E E N A W A Y , JR . , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: J ul y23, 2010)

_____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_____________ C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. P l ai nti ffs S t eph anie R i t chie and S cottR i t chie appeal fr om t he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s d e c i s i o n s g r a n t i n g s u mm a r yj u d g me n tf o rd e f e n d a n t s Wa c h o v i a Ba n k , N. A.2

(“ W a c h o v ia” ) a n d R ich a rd D e L u c a a n d d e n y in g th e ir re q u e st f o r a n e x ten sio n o f

tim e to r es pond t o t he mot i on. T he pl ai nt i ffs ar gue thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tfai l ed t o fol l ow t he t end a yn o tice p ro v isio n o f

F e d e ra l R u le o f

C iv il P ro c e d u re 5 6 (c ). W e d isa g re e a n d w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. I. B e c a u se w e w rite s o lelyf o r th e b e n e f

it o f th e p a rties , w e w ill o n lyb rie f ly s um m ar i ze the es s ent i al fac t s . St ephani e R i t chi e w as for m er l yempl oy ed byW achovi a, a n d D e lu c a se rv e d a s h e r su p e rv iso r. O n D e c e m b e r 2 8 , 2 0 0 6 , sh e a n d h e r h u sb a n d , S c o tt R i t chi e, fi l ed thi s act i on agai ns tW achovi a and D eLuca, al l egi ng cl ai m s bas ed, i nt eral i a, on T i t l e V I I of the C i vi l R i ght s A ctof 1964. St ephani e R i t chi e al l eges t hatD eLuca eng aged i n v ari ou s form s of sexu al harass m ent, i ncludi ng i nap propri at e com m ents , phy s i cal cont act , and s t al ki ng. Scot tR i t chi e al l eges t hathe s uffe r ed damages bas ed on lo s s o f c o n s o rt iu m . O n O ct ober10, 2007, aft eran uns ucce s s ful s et t l ementconfe r ence , t he D i s t r i ct C our tor der ed the part i es t o: ( 1) compl et e al l di s coverybyJ anuary4, 2008; ( 2) fi l e any m ot i ons fors um m aryj udgm entbyJ anuary18, 2008; ( 3) fi l e oppos i t i on t o anym ot i ons f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t b yF e b ru a ry 1 , 2 0 0 8 ; a n d (4 ) f ile re p ly b ri e f

s b yF e b ru a ry 8 , 2 0 0 8 . Suppl ement al A ppendi x ( “S. A . ”) 127. O n J anuary15, 2008, t he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed a m ot i on t o compel di s coveryfi l ed byt he def endant s , fi ndi ng t hatt he pl ai nt i ffs had fa i l ed to re s p o n d to th e d e f

e n d a n t’ s d is c o v e ry re q u e s ts a n d th e m o tio n to c o m p e l. S .A . 1 8 6 .3

T he C our tor der ed the pl ai nt i ffs t o pr oduce s ever al document s byJ anuary16, 2008, s erve r es pons es t o t he def

endant s ’ i nt err ogat or i es and document s r eques t s byJ anuary18, 2008, a n d p ro d u c e p lain tiff

S c o tt R itch ie f

o r a d e p o sitio n b yJa n u a ry1 8 , 2 0 0 8 . Id . G iv e n th is s chedul e forpr oduci ng t he r eques t ed di s covery , t he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o m odi fi ed the s um m aryj udgm entbr i efi ng s chedul e, ext endi ng t he dat e fort he def endant s t o fi l e a m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entunt i l J anuary25, 2008. S. A . 187. T hi s or derdi d notal t er anyof the otherdat es s etfor t h i n t he O ct ober10, 2007 or der ; t he dea dl i ne fort he pl ai nt i ffs t o oppos e the def endant s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entr emai ned February1, 2008. I d. In a c c o rd a n c e w ith th is m o d if ied b rie f in g sc h e d u le, th e d e f

e n d a n ts f iled th e ir m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm enton J anuary25, 2008. T he pl ai nt i ffs di d notr es pond byt he F e b ru a ry1 , 2 0 0 8 d e a d lin e . In ste a d , o n F e b ru a ry8 , 2 0 0 8 , the p lain tiff s f iled a m o tio n to ext end the dea dl i ne. A ppendi x ( “A pp. ”) 97- 99. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed thi s m ot i on on t he s ame dayi tw as s ubm i t t ed. A pp. 2- 4. O n February13, 2008, t he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the d ef en d an ts, d ism issi n g all rem ainin g co u n ts of the c o m p lai n t. A p p . 5 -18 . It d ism iss e d th e f

e d e ra l cla im s a g a in st D e L u c a b e c a u se in d iv id u a l em p lo y e e s c a n n o t b e h e ld l i abl e underT i t l e V I I . See Sher i dan v. E . I . D uPontde N emours & C o. , 100 F. 3d 1061, 1 0 7 7 - 7 8 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 6 ) ( e n b a n c ) . I td i s mi s s e d t h e h o s t i l e wo r k i n g e n v i r o n me n tc l a i ms agai ns tW achovi a bec aus e R i t chi e had f ai l ed t o es t abl i s h a bas i s fori m pos i ng vi car i ous4

l i a b i l i t y , a n d i td i s mi s s e d t h e r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i ms b e c a u s e Ri t c h i e f a i l e d t o ma k e o u ta p r i ma fac i e ca s e thatW achovi a t ook anyadver s e empl oym entact i ons agai ns ther . H avi ng di s m i s s ed al l of the fe der al cl ai m s , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdecl i ned t o exer ci s e s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on overt he r emai ni ng s t at e l aw cl ai m s . See 28 U . S. C . § 1367( c) ( 3) . O n M ar ch 11, 2008, t he pl ai nt i ffs t i m el yappea l ed. II. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1331, and w e have juri sd ict ion u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e e x erc ise p lena ryrev iew o v er a d istri ct co u rt ’s su b stan ti v e d ec isi o n to g ran t sum m aryjud g m en t, b u t w e re v iew the D istri ct C o u rt ’s d ec isi o n n o t t o ex tend the d ea d li n e f o r sub m itti n g o p p o sit ion to the m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm entforabus e of di s cr et i on. See R adi ch v. G oode, 886 F. 2d 1391, 1393 ( “W hether a di s t r i ctcour tpr emat ur el ygr ant s s um m aryj udgm enti s r evi ew ed forabus e of d iscreti o n . ”). T he pl ai nt i ffs do notchal l enge, and w e fi nd no err ori n, t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr ant of s um m aryj udgm entfort he def endant s bas ed on the r ecor d befor e the court . I ns t ead, t he pl ai nt i ffs chal l enge the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o denyt hei rm ot i on t o ext end the tim e to o p p o se th e d e f

e n d a n ts’ m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. T he ver s i on of Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 56 i n eff ectatt he t i m e of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on pr ovi ded thata mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent“mustbe s ervedT h e tim in g p ro v isio n s o f R u le 5 6 w e re su b se q u e n tlya m e n d e d . T h ro u g h o u t th is 1 opi ni on, w e r efe rt o t he ver s i on of the rul e i n eff ectdur i ng t he r el evantt i m e per i od. 5 a t lea st 1 0 d a y s b e f

o re th e d a yse t f

o r th e h e a rin g .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ) (2 0 0 8 ). “ W h ile 1 R u le 5 6 sp e a k s o f

a ‘h e a rin g ,’ w e d o n o t re a d it t o re q u ire th a t an o ra l h e a rin g b e h e ld b e f o r e j u d g me n ti s e n t e r e d . ” An c h o r a g e As s o c s . v . Vi r g i n I s l a n d s Bd . o f T a x Re v i e w, 922 F. 2d 168, 177 ( 3d C i r . 1990) . R ather , w e have i nt erpr et ed R ul e 56( c) as r equi r i ng an “oppor tuni t yt o s ubm i tw r i t t en evi dence and ar gum ent . ” I d. W e have expl ai ned thatt he pu rpose of R ule 56(c) i s t o p rovi de the no nm ov i ng partyw i t h “an op po rtun i t yt o o pp ose t he entr yof s um m aryj udgm ent . ” D L R es . , I nc. v. Fi r s t E ner gySol ut i ons C orp. , 506 F. 3d 2 0 9 , 2 2 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). A lth o u g h w e h a v e “ in sis ted o n stric t co m p lian c e w ith th e p ro c e d u ra l re q u ire m e n ts o f R u le 5 6 (c ),” B ro o k s v . H u ss m a n C o rp ., 8 7 8 F .2 d 1 1 5 , 1 1 6 -1 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 9 ), in th is case t he R ule does no tdict at e t he resul tt he p l ai nti ffs seek. R ule 56(c) requi res t en d ay s’ not i ce; i tdoes notr equi r e t en day s i n w hi ch t o r es pond t o t he movi ng par t y ’ s br i ef. See G i bs on v. M ay or& C ounci l of the C i t yof W i l m i ngt on, 355 F. 3d 215, 223 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( “Fr om a pr ocedur al s t andpoi nt , t he Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e cl ear l yr equi r e that par t i es be gi ven t en day s not i ce thata mot i on fors um m aryj udgm enti s bei ng cons i der ed. ”) . T hi s i nt erpr et at i on of the R ul e’ s not i ce r equi r ementi s s uppor t ed byour p re c e d e n t re c o g n izin g th a t a d istric t co u rt “ m a yg ra n t su m m a ryju d g m e n t su a sp o n te in appr opr i at e ci r cumst ance s , ” pr ovi ded thatthe courtpr ovi des “pr i ornot i ce a nd anC o n tr aryto the p lai n ti ff s’ su g g esti o n , the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t gran t sum m ary 2 j udgm entas a “di s coverys anct i on. ” Si nce the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm ent f o r th e d e f

e n d a n ts f o r su b sta n tiv e re a so n s, n o t as a sa n c tio n f o r th e p lain tiff ’s f

a ilu re to re sp o n d to d isc o v e ryre q u e sts , o u r d e c isio n in P o u lis v . S tate F a rm F ire a n d C a su a lty C om pany , 747 F. 2d 863 ( 3d C i r . 1984) , does notappl y . See A nchor age A s s ocs . , 922 F. 2d at178. 6 oppor tuni t yt o oppos e s um m aryj udgm ent . ” D L R es . , 506 F. 3d at223 ( ci t i ng C el ot ex C orp. v. C atr et t , 477 U . S. 317, 326 ( 1986) ) . I n t hi s cont ext , w e have expl ai ned that“a partym ustbe g i ven no t i ce w hen sum m aryj ud gm ent i s bei ng con t em plat ed ag ai nsti tso t hatt he evi dence nece s s aryt o oppos e the mot i on m aybe mar s hal ed t o t he C our t . ” G ib so n , 3 5 5 F .3 d a t 2 2 4 . A s th is p re c e d e n t d e m o n stra tes , the p u rp o se o f R u le 5 6 (c ) is to e n su re th a t a p a rtyo p p o sin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t h a s a d e q u a te n o tice a n d a n o p p o rtu n ityto s ubm i toppos i t i on. I n t hi s cas e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr ovi ded ampl e not i ce thati tw oul d be cons i der i ng th e d e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t an d su f f icie n t ti m e f

o r th e p lain tiff

s to r es pond t o t he mot i on. T he courtes t abl i s hed the br i efi ng s chedul e - - s et t i ng February1, 2 0 0 8 as th e d ea d li n e f

o r th e p lai n ti ff

s to f il e the iro p p o sit ion to the d ef en d an ts’ m o ti o n -- on O ct ober10, 2007, overfourm ont hs i n advanc e. E ven w hen the courtext ended the deadl i ne fors ubm i s s i on of the def endant s ’ m ot i on on J anuary15, 2008 beca us e the pl ai nt i ffs had fa i l ed t o r es pond t o s ever al di s coveryr eques t s , m or e than tw o w eeks 2 re m a in e d b e f

o re th e d e a d lin e f

o r th e f ili n g o f th e p lain tiff

s’ o p p o sitio n . P u rsu a n t to th is m odi fi ed br i efi ng s chedul e, t he def endant s t i m el ys ubm i t t ed thei rm ot i on on J anuary25,7

2 0 0 8 , an d the p lai n ti ff

s w ere o rde red to su b m ittheir op p o sit ion b ythe o ri g inal F eb rua ry 1 , 2 0 0 8 d e a d lin e . T h is s e q u e n c e o f e v e n ts p ro v id e d th e p lain tiff s w ith su f

f icie n t ti m e to oppos e the entr yof s um m aryj udgm ent . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notvi ol at e the not i ce r equi r ement s s etfor t h i n R ul e 56( c) orabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n decl i ni ng t o ext end the deadl i ne foroppos i ng t he def endant s ’ m ot i on.

III . F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.