Opinion ID: 789096
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plaintiffs' Request to Conduct Additional Discovery

Text: 30 Finally, the Davises claim that it was an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge to deny their motion for a continuance to conduct additional discovery. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) provides that, if a party opposing a summary judgment motion has demonstrated that it is unable to present by affidavit facts essential to justify [its] opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f). The Davises argue that, had they been allowed extra time to depose their own broker as well as the title company representative present at the closing (Bogdanovich) and various other employees of the defendants — all of whom, according to the Davises' unsupported representations, they were unable to obtain statements from through their own efforts — that they would have been able to produce evidence sufficient to withstand summary judgment. 31 A trial judge's decision to consider a defendant's motion for summary judgment before allowing the plaintiff to depose certain witnesses is a discovery matter, which we review under the abuse of discretion standard. Grayson v. O'Neill, 308 F.3d 808, 815-16 (7th Cir.2002). We are very troubled with the substance of the plaintiffs' Rule 56(f) motion, which leads us to conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying additional discovery. Initially, we note that the Davises' assertion that no discovery occurred prior to the district court's summary judgment ruling is inaccurate. To the contrary, by late November 2001, both of the defendants had complied with their initial discovery obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1). In particular, they had disclosed complete copies of the Davises' loan file, neither of which included a two-year signed or unsigned prepayment penalty addendum. 32 Nonetheless, the Davises argued before the district court that, because a question of fact exists with regard to the location of a two-year prepayment penalty rider signed by the plaintiffs..., [they] must be allowed to depose all employees, agents, or representatives of defendants ... who had any physical contact with plaintiffs' loan file. Edelman Dec. at 2. However, the plaintiffs fail to set forth any specific evidence which they might have obtained from these depositions that would create a genuine issue as to this material fact. The only reason to believe that additional, relevant evidence would materialize from deposing the defendants' employees is the Davises' apparent hope of finding a proverbial smoking gun — that is, someone who will testify that he or she knows that a signed, two-year prepayment penalty provision did actually exist at some time and that the defendants have either hidden, destroyed, or otherwise disposed of this document. This, however, is based on nothing more than mere speculation and would amount to a fishing expedition, which is an entirely improper basis for reversing a district court's decision to deny a Rule 56(f) motion. Grayson, 308 F.3d at 817; United States v. On Leong Chinese Merch. Assoc. Bldg., 918 F.2d 1289, 1294-95 (7th Cir.1990). Likewise, the Davises' desire to now depose the GN and Countrywide officials that had authority over their loan (Brian Brandt and Patrice McPherson, respectively) is also an insufficient reason for this court to hold that the district court abused its discretion. Both Brandt and McPherson stated via affidavit that the Davises' loan file did not contain either a signed or unsigned two-year prepayment penalty addendum and the depositions sought would be solely for purposes of casting doubt on the affiants' credibility and to reach the unlikely possibility ... [that] an adverse witness may contradict an earlier statement or volunteer an admission. On Leong, 918 F.2d at 1294. However, this is not a valid reason for a court to grant a motion for a continuance to conduct additional discovery because, as this court has explained, Rule 56(f) is not a shield that can be raised to block a motion for summary judgment without even the slightest showing by the opposing party that his opposition is meritorious. Id. 33 The Davises have failed to adequately explain, either in their briefs before this court or in the declaration of their counsel, Daniel Edelman, attached to their Rule 56(f) motion, and it remains a mystery why they failed to acquire an affidavit or deposition testimony from Boatman and Bogdanovich — the two third-party witnesses whose alleged statements are necessary to support the plaintiffs' belief that they signed a two-year prepayment penalty agreement. According to the Davises, Boatman would testify that she informed them prior to the closing that GN agreed to a two-year prepayment penalty period, while Bogdanovich would state that she watched the Davises sign each document after having told them that the two stacks of documents were identical and conformed to the terms of their agreement with GN. 34 Assuming that both of these witnesses would need to be subpoenaed before testifying, the plaintiffs had ample time (a total of 74 days of open discovery) to attempt to secure their testimony as well as approach the trial court and demand compliance to their discovery requests if needed. 14 Indeed, neither Boatman (who was the Davises' own broker for the loan), nor Bogdanovich (who worked for the title company that facilitated the closing and delivered the signed copies to GN), is a GN employee. The plaintiffs' only explanation for their inability to acquire statements from these third-party sources is a conclusory and self-serving statement alleging that because their mortgage broker and the title agent have existing relationships with GN, they wish not to sour that bond by commenting on the Davises' closing. However, this speculative explanation for the Davises' inability to gather evidence from Boatman and Bogdanovich is feeble at best and, as such, is both inadequate and insufficient to avoid circuit precedent holding that [w]hen a party fails to secure discoverable evidence due to his own lack of diligence, it is not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to refuse to grant a continuance to obtain such information. Pfeil v. Rogers, 757 F.2d 850, 857 (7th Cir.1985). 35 Also, we are of the opinion and thus hold that the district court did not commit a reversible error by denying the Davises' Rule 56(f) motion due to the fact that they have failed to establish they suffered any actual or substantial harm as a result of the denial of their discovery request. Balderston v. Fairbanks Morse Engine Div. of Coltec Indus., 328 F.3d 309, 319 (7th Cir.2003). Regardless of what their proposed discovery might possibly have uncovered, the fact remains that the Davises failed to properly examine the documents they were executing, for if they had, they would have discovered that they had signed a five-year prepayment penalty agreement. Because the harm they suffered was due to their own negligence, the Davises were not justified in relying on any alleged representations made by GN or its agent and are precluded from now claiming that GN committed fraud. Finally, the Davises have failed to demonstrate that additional discovery would reasonably allow them to establish the deception prong of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. The Davises' justification for a continuance of discovery in support of their ICFA claim is not genuine and convincing, but barely colorable, especially in light of their burden, i.e., to prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence, Turzynski, 259 N.E.2d at 299. As such, the Davises were not justified in pursuing additional discovery under Rule 56(f), and the district court was permitted to use its discretion in denying the Rule 56(f) motion. See Pfeil, 757 F.2d at 856.