Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/30413296/042310-Rule-56-Motion
Timestamp: 2013-05-25 11:37:43
Document Index: 772410798

Matched Legal Cases: ['arty2027', 'arty515', 'arty212', 'arty902', 'arty237', 'arty40', 'arty2171', 'arty197', 'arty59', 'arty378', 'arty304', 'arty335', 'arty515', 'arty566', 'arty1270', 'arty2027', 'arty997', 'arty50', 'arty498', 'arty2018', 'arty1402', 'arty515', 'arty212', 'arty4242', 'arty84', 'arty150', 'arty902', 'arty237', 'arty40', 'arty2171', 'arty197', 'arty59', 'arty474', 'arty889', 'arty488', 'arty489', 'arty378', 'arty304', 'arty335', 'arty515', 'arty566', 'arty1270', 'arty220', 'arty50', 'arty658', 'arty997']

SOUTH FLORIDA TEA PARTY, INC.,A Florida non-profit corporation, et al.,Plaintiffs,v. CASE NO.: 10-80062-CV-MARRA/JOHNSONTEA PARTY, et al.Defendants._________________________________/ PLAINTIFFS’ RULE 56(f) MOTIONAND ALTERNATIVELYPLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TODEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs, by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Rule 56(f) of the FederalRules of Civil Procedure, hereby request that Defendants “Tea Party” and O’Neal’s Motion forSummary Judgment be denied without prejudice as the same was filed prematurely.Alternatively, the Plaintiffs request an enlargement of time to respond in opposition to theMotion for Summary Judgment up to and including fourteen (14) days after the Court has ruledon the instant Motion.
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is not supported by any evidence, testimony,reliable documents, or other support. Given the posture of this case, the nature of theDefendants’ Motion is no surprise. The fact is that no substantive discovery has occurred.Specifically, the Defendants have yet to participate in any way in the discovery process, andPlaintiffs Interrogatories and Requests for Production remain outstanding. Furthermore, theDefendants have not even Answered the Complaint or asserted any Affirmative Defenses. It issimply too early in litigation for summary judgment to be properly briefed and opposed.
Case 9:10-cv-80062-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2010 Page 1 of 8
2Plaintiffs cannot reasonably be expected to say what facts are and are not genuinelydisputed in good faith without the benefit of discovery, or even an Answer to the Complaint. Forthis reason, Plaintiffs ask that, pursuant to Rule 56(f), the Defendants’ Motion for SummaryJudgment be denied without prejudice to afford the Plaintiffs an opportunity to conductdiscovery sufficient to properly respond to the Motion upon re-filing of the same.
Concerning Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Rule 56(c) states that:[t]he judgment sought should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery anddisclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issueas to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.See Fed.R.Civ.P.56(c). Thus, the parties may rely upon four (4) categories of documents insupport or opposition of a Motion for Summary Judgment, namely, (1) pleadings; (2) discovery;(3) disclosures on file; and (4) affidavits. Id. However, as of the filing of the instant Motion, theDefendants have not taken or produced any discovery, the Defendants have not produced InitialDisclosures, Plaintiffs have served Requests for Production and Interrogatories but responses arenot yet due, Defendants have failed to file any affidavits in support of their Motion for SummaryJudgment,
and Defendants have not filed any pleadings as defined by Rule 7(a). Thus,Defendants have failed to present any of the specific support required by Rule 56(c) sufficient to
show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and Plaintiffs have not had an
It appears that attorney Frederick O’Neal’s signature on the Motion for Summary Judgment has been notarized andincludes a statement that Mr. O’Neal “knows from his own personal knowledge that the factual statements contained[in the Motion for Summary Judgment] are true and correct.” Presumably, Mr. O’Neal, a lawyer and member of theFlorida Bar since 1978, cannot be troubled to prepare an affidavit of his own testimony apart from the Motion, butrather intends the Motion to be both Motion and affidavit. Were Mr. O’Neal a
non-attorney litigant, theundersigned might not object. However, Mr. O’Neal as an officer of the Court should be held to a higher standard.The “affidavit” is so intertwined with argument and conjecture as to be completely unreliable, and should bedisregarded.
Case 9:10-cv-80062-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2010 Page 2 of 8
3opportunity to gather the necessary information required to respond in opposition to theDefendants’ Motion.For just this reason Rule 56(f) states that:[i]f a party opposing the motion shows by affidavit that, for specified reasons, itcannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) deny themotion; (2) order a continuance to enable affidavits to be obtained, depositions tobe taken, or other discovery to be undertaken; or (3) issue any other just order.See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f).
While Rule 56(c) allows a party to move for summary judgment “at any time until 30days after the close of all discovery,” in general, “[s]ummary judgment should not . . . ordinarilybe granted before discovery has been completed.” See Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual CasualtyCo. v. American Fidelity Life Ins. Co., 606 F.2d 602, 609 (5th Cir. 1979);
Snook, 859 F.2d at870 (“This court has often noted that summary judgment should not be granted until the partyopposing the motion has had an adequate opportunity for discovery.”); Metropolitan Life Ins.Co. v. Bancorp Services, LLC, 527 F.3d 1330, 1336-37, and fn3 (Fed. Cir. 2008)(noting that it is“the prevailing rule in all circuits” that “the parties must be afforded adequate time for generaldiscovery before being required to respond to a motion for summary judgment”); and Thomas v.Maui Tacos/Tiki Takiz, LLC, 2005 WL 2002079 (M.D. Ala. 2005)(granting 56(f) relief whereno discovery had been conducted).Although it is ordinarily the burden of the non-moving party to show that specificdiscovery is needed and that such discovery would or could show a disputed issue of materialfact, Snook, 859 F.2d at 870 (noting that where “documents or other discovery sought would be
While Rule 56(f) specifically calls for an affidavit, in the Eleventh Circuit, “a party opposing a motion forsummary judgment need not file an affidavit pursuant to Rule 56(f) in order to invoke the protection of that Rule.”See Allen v U.S. EEOC Office, 2010 WL 653329 *2 (11th Cir. 2010)(quoting Snook v. Trust Co. of Ga. Bank of Savannah, N.A., 859 F.2d 865, 871 (11th Cir. 1988)). Instead, “written representation by plaintiff’s lawyer, anofficer of the court, is in the spirit of Rule 56(f).” Snook, 859 F.2d at 871.
The decisions of the former Fifth Circuit entered before October 1, 1981 are binding precedent in this Circuit. SeeBonner v. City of Pritchard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981).
Case 9:10-cv-80062-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2010 Page 3 of 8
SearchSearch History: Searching...Result 00 of 0000 results for result for p. 042310_Rule 56 MotionPLAINTIFFS’ RULE 56(f) MOTIONAND ALTERNATIVELYPLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TODEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTDownload or PrintAdd To Collection1.1KReads2Readcasts1Embed ViewsThis is a private document.
Published byOrlando Tea PartyFollowSearchTIP Press Ctrl-F⌘F to search anywhere in the document.Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.See Premium PlansInfo and RatingCategory:Research > LawRating:Upload Date:04/23/2010Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialTags:doug guetzloefred onealnick egorofftea party lawsuitdoug guetzloefred onealnick egorofftea party lawsuit(fewer)Free download or readfalse online for free.Flag for inappropriate contenthttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30413296/042310-Rule-56-Motion02/15/2011pdftextoriginal
Recommended4 p.05-12-10_Order Granting Plaintiffs' Rule 56(F) MotionOrlando Tea Party2027 Reads8 p.S.C. v. Dirty World, LLC - Plaintiff's Rule 56(f) MotionDavid S. Gingras617 ReadsRecommended1 p.Final Order of Dismissal 11/22/10Orlando Tea Party515 Reads5 p.Plaintiffs Notice Of Voluntary Dismissal 11/02/10Orlando Tea Party212 Reads4 p.07-30-10 Motion for Miscellaneous ReliefOrlando Tea Party902 Reads5 p.08-04-10 Motion to Withdraw as AttorneyOrlando Tea Party237 Reads10 p.08-18-10 Memorandum in OppositionOrlando Tea Party40 Reads2 p.09-07-10 Order on Motion to Withdraw as AttorneyOrlando Tea Party2171 Reads2 p.09 13 10 Notice (Other)Orlando Tea Party197 Reads2 p.07-30-10 Order Denying Emergency ReliefOrlando Tea Party59 Reads12 p.06-21-10_Notice (Other)Orlando Tea Party378 Reads17 p.06-22-10_Notice (Other)1Orlando Tea Party304 Reads17 p.06-22-10_Notice (Other)2Orlando Tea Party335 Reads5 p.07-08-10_Notice of Voluntary DismissalOrlando Tea Party515 Reads1 p.07-09-10_Notice of Mediation HearingOrlando Tea Party566 Reads5 p.06-21-10_Notice of Voluntary DismissalOrlando Tea Party1270 Reads4 p.05-12-10_Order Granting Plaintiffs' Rule 56(F) MotionOrlando Tea Party2027 Reads3 p.06-07-10 Notice of Mediator SelectionOrlando Tea Party997 Reads2 p.06-07-10 OrderOrlando Tea Party50 Reads2 p.06-09-10 Order Granting Plaintiffs Rule 56F MotionOrlando Tea Party498 Reads11 p.06-11-10 Plaintiffs Notice of Supplemental AuthorityOrlando Tea Party2018 Reads2 p.05-20-10_Plaintiffs Counsel Notice of UnavailabilityOrlando Tea Party1402 Reads
More From This User1 p.Final Order of Dismissal 11/22/10Orlando Tea Party515 Reads5 p.Plaintiffs Notice Of Voluntary Dismissal 11/02/10Orlando Tea Party212 Reads421 p.Mailers ListOrlando Tea Party4242 Reads1 p.MRWithdrawOrlando Tea Party84 Reads13 p.(TEA) Matthew Russell - DefendantOrlando Tea Party150 Reads4 p.07-30-10 Motion for Miscellaneous ReliefOrlando Tea Party902 Reads5 p.08-04-10 Motion to Withdraw as AttorneyOrlando Tea Party237 Reads10 p.08-18-10 Memorandum in OppositionOrlando Tea Party40 Reads2 p.09-07-10 Order on Motion to Withdraw as AttorneyOrlando Tea Party2171 Reads2 p.09 13 10 Notice (Other)Orlando Tea Party197 Reads2 p.07-30-10 Order Denying Emergency ReliefOrlando Tea Party59 Reads9 p.John Ferentinos TEA candidate disqualifiedOrlando Tea Party474 Reads5 p.Dunmire LawsuitOrlando Tea Party889 Reads11 p.07-11-10 Email From Doug Guetzloe to Ron Paul Mailing ListOrlando Tea Party488 Reads2 p.07-09-10_DougGuetzloeEmailOrlando Tea Party489 Reads12 p.06-21-10_Notice (Other)Orlando Tea Party378 Reads17 p.06-22-10_Notice (Other)1Orlando Tea Party304 Reads17 p.06-22-10_Notice (Other)2Orlando Tea Party335 Reads5 p.07-08-10_Notice of Voluntary DismissalOrlando Tea Party515 Reads1 p.07-09-10_Notice of Mediation HearingOrlando Tea Party566 Reads5 p.06-21-10_Notice of Voluntary DismissalOrlando Tea Party1270 Reads3 p.Dear-AndyOrlando Tea Party220 Reads2 p.Guetzloe Denies Florida Tea Party Connection to Grayson - WDBO Loca...Orlando Tea Party50 Reads3 p.3 Page Threatening Letter to Bruce O'Donoghue by Fred O'Neal Orlando Tea Party658 Reads3 p.06-07-10 Notice of Mediator SelectionOrlando Tea Party997 Reads