Opinion ID: 2745042
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Additional Discovery

Text: For similar reasons, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs’ motion for more discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). Rule 56 permits a district court to delay consideration of a summary judgment motion and order additional discovery before rul‐ ing if the non‐movant demonstrates that “it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). The Rule places the burden on the non‐movant that believes additional discovery is required to “state the reasons why the party cannot adequately respond to the summary judg‐ ment motion without further discovery.” Deere & Co. v. Ohio Gear, 462 F.3d 701, 706 (7th Cir. 2006). Plaintiffs identified two discrete areas of discovery that they allegedly needed to further explore in order to respond to Redbox’s summary judgment motion as it pertained to Stream: (1) information regarding the “technical” method by which Stream “queries Redbox’s database,” and (2) infor‐ mation that would shed more light on whether Stream had No. 13‐3037 17 accessed all, or just some, of Redbox’s customer records. Nei‐ ther of these topics were material to the district court’s sum‐ mary judgment ruling. How Stream accesses Redbox’s infor‐ mation is irrelevant to whether disclosures to Stream fall within the VPPA’s “ordinary course of business” exception, and the district court made clear in its opinion that it would reach the same conclusion (one which we endorse on appeal) regardless of whether Stream had access to all customer rec‐ ords or just some of them. Plaintiffs therefore fell far short of meeting their burden to identify material facts needed to oppose summary judgment. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs additional discovery before ruling on Redbox’s motion.2 2 Plaintiffs contend that the district court’s denial of their Rule 56(d) mo‐ tion sets a “dangerous precedent,” arguing that Redbox unfairly moved for summary judgment at the close of class discovery, before merits dis‐ covery had begun. But Redbox explains that the “merits” portion of dis‐ covery was limited to information concerning unnamed putative mem‐ bers. “Class” discovery was designed to determine whether Redbox dis‐ closed prohibited information about named plaintiffs Sterk and Chung, and, if so, whether the class requirements of Rule 23 were met. As Redbox points out, over the lengthy discovery period prior to the filing of its summary judgment motion, it provided plaintiffs with all relevant information concerning the named plaintiffs and in‐depth descriptions (pursuant to interrogatories and Rule 30(b)(6) depositions) of the various vendors with which Redbox shares customer data. The only discovery it refused plaintiffs during “class” discovery concerned the identities and rental histories of yet‐to‐be‐named class members. Summary judgment turned on the legal significance of Stream’s role as Redbox’s customer service vendor. All material information pertaining to that question had been sought and received by plaintiffs prior to summary judgment. 18 No. 13‐3037