Opinion ID: 221938
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Refusal To Permit Siggers To Have Access To Discovery Materials

Text: Siggers's next argument is that the district court erred in denying his motion to delay consideration of the cross-motions for summary judgment to provide him time to obtain more discovery. At the time of the motion and the district court's ruling, a litigant who wished to obtain additional facts to oppose a summary judgment motion could make a request to do so under Rule 56(f), which provided: (f) When Affidavits Are Unavailable. If a party opposing the motion shows by affidavit that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) deny the motion; (2) order a continuance to enable affidavits to be obtained, depositions to be taken, or other discovery to be undertaken; or (3) issue any other just order. FED.R.CIV.P. 56(f) (effective December 1, 2007). [8] Because Rule 56(f) makes the trial court's allowance of additional discovery discretionary, our standard of review is abuse of discretion. Egerer v. Woodland Realty, Inc., 556 F.3d 415, 426 (6th Cir.2009). The affidavit required by Rule 56(f) to support a request for additional discovery must indicate the need for discovery, what material facts may be uncovered, and why the information has not been previously discovered. Id. A number of different factors are applicable to such claims [of an abuse of discretion], such as (1) when the appellant learned of the issue that is the subject of the desired discovery; (2) whether the desired discovery would have changed the ruling below; (3) how long the discovery period had lasted; (4) whether the appellant was dilatory in its discovery efforts; and (5) whether the appellee was responsive to discovery requests. Plott v. General Motors Corp., 71 F.3d 1190, 1196-97 (6th Cir.1995) (internal citations omitted); see also CenTra, Inc. v. Estrin, 538 F.3d 402, 420 (6th Cir. 2008) (same). Typically, when the parties have no opportunity for discovery, denying the Rule 56(f) motion and ruling on a summary judgment motion is likely to be an abuse of discretion. CenTra, 538 F.3d at 420 (collecting cases). On September 24, 2007, Siggers served on the defendants a discovery request. See Doc. 16 (Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery at Exhibits 1-12). The defendants filed a motion to stay discovery pending the outcome of their claim of qualified immunity, and a stay was granted on August 26, 2008. Then, five days after all but one of Siggers's claims were dismissed on December 10, 2008, the magistrate judge lifted the discovery stay and set a March 16, 2009 discovery deadline. Campbell filed her motion for summary judgment in February 2009, however, so when March 16, 2009 arrived, Siggers filed a Motion to Delay Consideration of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment until the Court Decides Plaintiff's Rule 59 and Discovery Motions. Doc. 56 (Motion to Delay Consideration). In his motion, Siggers sought to have the discovery materials listed in his original discovery request provided to him before the district court ruled on the pending cross-motions for summary judgment. The Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge recommended that the district court deny this motion. In particular, the magistrate judge believed that even if, contrary to the claims of the defendants, a hearing had occurred on the September 12, 2006 Notice, and a hearing report therefore existed, this report would be irrelevant because [n]othing that happened at the hearing, if there was one, bears on whether the initial rejection of the mail was proper or based on a retaliatory motive. Doc. 66 (Report and Recommendation at 4). Siggers objected to this R & R by noting that Defendant has not provided Plaintiff any of the requested discovery materials, despite this Court's prior order to do so. Doc. 69 (Siggers's Objections to the R & R at 2) (emphasis in original). He further claimed that these materials  interrogatories, admissions and production of documents  will provide material facts which will further support his claims. Id. The district court was willing to assume that Siggers's unsworn pleading satisfies Rule 56(f)'s requirement of an affidavit, but the court ultimately denied the motion on the ground that Siggers' objection fails to identify with any specificity either the particular discovery that he needs or how that discovery is essential to his opposition to Campbell's Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. 71 (Opinion and Order at 5). It was an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny this motion, given that Siggers has never received a response to his discovery request, and in light of the obvious relevance of this discovery and the potential for it to aid his opposition to summary judgment. Even if one agrees that a hearing report on the September 12, 2006 Notice does not exist (because Siggers never requested a hearing), the rest of his discovery request is quite specific in what it seeks. With respect to the discovery he requested from Campbell, he seeks some documents that would be both easily produced and informative: (1) the hearing reports regarding the September 6, 2005 and September 29, 2006 Notices; and (2) any e-mails, memo's or any other correspondence written by you, or to you concerning Plaintiff Siggers mail, or his status as a prisoner, while at the Mound Correctional Facility. Doc. 16 (Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery at Exhibit 5). His interrogatories are also quite simple; he seeks to know (1) the names and job responsibilities of all the staff members you have worked with in the Mound Facility mailroom from 2005-2007; (2) the names of everyone you contacted or who contacted you, in relation to the actions you took in issuing Plaintiff Siggers mail rejection notices; (3) whether you have ever been reprimanded, or disciplined during your employment by the Department of Corrections. If so, state the nature of the reprimand or discipline, and when it occurred; and (4) whether a civil action or lawsuit has ever been filed against you in relation to your MDOC employment. If so, state how many, when, what were the causes of action and outcome. Id. at Exhibit 4. Siggers identified the discovery he sought with sufficient specificity. Siggers's discovery request was in the record as a set of attachments to the Defendants' first motion to stay discovery, and Siggers clearly argued to the district court that Defendant has not provided Plaintiff any of the requested discovery materials, despite this Court's prior order to do so, Doc. 69 (Siggers's Objections to the August 26, 2009 R & R at 2). Additionally, these materials have obvious potential to provide information on which Siggers could rely in opposing summary judgment. Siggers has sought discovery from Campbell (and others) since 2007, and he has not been dilatory. The hearing reports requested may bring to light evidence regarding the motivations behind Campbell's actions and whether she genuinely believed the mail violated P.D. 04.07.112. The discovery period was shortened because of the long discovery stay imposed by the district court, which was sought by the defendants on the ground that qualified immunity would obviate the need for discovery. Finally, as mentioned, the defendants do not appear to have otherwise been responsive to any of Siggers's discovery requests. We therefore hold that it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny Siggers's motion to delay consideration of the cross-motions for summary judgment, and we reverse this portion of the district court's decision. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.