Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321204665/Marie-McCray-v-Maryland-Dep-t-of-Transportation-4th-Cir-2014
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 10:00:19+00:00

Document:
MiiCs & Partners Am. Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., et al., C.A. Nos. 14-803-RGA, 14-804-RGA (D. Del. Aug. 11, 2015).
Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
Before KING, GREGORY, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
JR., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.
position was terminated because of budget cuts.
are barred by sovereign immunity.
we present the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Robinson v. Clipse, 602 F.3d 605, 607 (4th Cir. 2010).
received no complaints from supervisors.
had no effect on her job performance until 2007.
ambulance and treated for low blood sugar.
the same day and returned to work one week later.
her fitness and questioned her ability to work.
of a series of budget cuts in Maryland.
decision, legislative immunity blocked the lawsuit.
that was integral to her case.
individuals with disabilities were employed by the MDOT or MTA.
Civil Procedure for more time to conduct discovery.
termination was blocked by legislative immunity.
immunity that remained in dispute.
court also denied McCrays 56(d) motion.
appeal, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291.
v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974).
suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens.
See Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U.S.
or monetary relief from the MDOT or MTA.
v. Fla Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000) (ADEA claims); cf.
for Title II claims but not Title I claims).
for the first time on appeal.
bar so that it need not be raised in the trial court.).
Tennessee, 322 F.3d 431, 435 (6th Cir. 2003).
defense, even though it is raised before us for the first time.
party into a fencing match without a sword or mask.
present facts essential to justify its opposition.
or issue any other appropriate order.
F.3d 214, 244 (4th Cir. 2002).
to discover information that is essential to his opposition.
parties from premature summary judgment motions.
56(d) motion succeeds with ease.
supervisors at the MDOT and MTA.
change to the rule. Id. at 375 n.6.
of the key evidence lies in the control of the moving party.
Union v. Lewis, 473 F.2d 561, 56566 (7th Cir. 1972)).
from a premature summary judgment motion.
notice as to which specific facts are yet to be discovered.
Nader v. Blair, 549 F.3d 953, 961 (4th Cir. 2008).
material she needed to discover.
the opportunity to discover evidence but chose not to.
gather evidence was due to her own delay.
McCrays 56(d) motion should be granted.
legislative immunity, so the Rule 56(d) denial was premature.
that we review de novo.
the pressures of litigation and the liability that may result.
181 (4th Cir. 2011) [hereinafter Washington Suburban].
elections from waging political war through litigation.
individuals who are willing to withstand a lawsuit.
Kensington, 684 F.3d at 470.
outward marks of public decisionmaking.
trouble concluding that enacting a budget is a legislative act.
See Kensington, 684 F.3d at 471.
Bogan, 513 U.S. at 56.
Governor and Board of Public Worksnot the legislature.
short. Judy v. Schaefer, 627 A.2d 1039, 1049 (Md. 1993).
Charleston, 63 F.3d 295, 303 (4th Cir. 1995); see also Baraka v.
executive officials in Maryland who carried out the budget cuts.
submit the new proposed budget to local legislators.
into effect by operation of law.
This Court allowed the subpoena to be enforced.
legislative ones that were protected by legislative immunity.
behavior that occurred before any legislative action took place.
responsibilities in the years leading up to budget cuts.
she asked for more work.
actions were taken before any legislative activity.
with approval in Burlington Indus, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S.
forced Marylands government to scale back its budget.
hold and sent her to the roof.
investigation, rather than a lawsuit.
Washington Suburban, 631 F.3d at 18283.
lends support to our ruling here.
pose a threat to legislators.
that occurred before any legislative activity began.
activity, the summary judgment dismissal was premature.
district courts Rule 56(d) denial was an abuse of discretion.

References: v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.