Opinion ID: 42570
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Court’s Management of Discovery

Text: 2 We review a district court’s discovery rulings for abuse of discretion. Iraola & CIA , S.A v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 325 F.3d 1274, 1286 (11th Cir. 2003). “District judges are accorded wide discretion in ruling upon discovery motions, and appellate review is accordingly deferential.” Harris v. Chapman, 97 F.3d 499, 506 (11th Cir. 1996). “Moreover, we will not overturn discovery rulings unless it is shown that the District Court’s ruling resulted in substantial harm to the appellant’s case.” Iraola, 325 F.3d at 1286 (internal quotations omitted). “Courts do and should show a leniency to pro se litigants not enjoyed by those with the benefit of a legal education. Yet even in the case of pro se litigants this leniency does not give a court license to serve as de facto counsel for a party.” GJR Investments v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted). Once a pro se litigant is in court, “he is subject to the relevant laws and rules of the court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). “[We have] written that discovery in Title VII cases is not without limits. The information sought must be relevant and not overly burdensome to the responding party.” Wright v. AmSouth Bancorporation, 320 F.3d 1198, 1205 (11th Cir. 2003). Likewise, a district court’s refusal to grant a continuance of a summary judgment motion in order to conduct discovery is reviewed for an abuse of 3 discretion. Burks v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co., 212 F.3d 1333, 1336 (11th Cir. 2000). Rule 56(f) states: Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion [for summary judgment] that the party cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify the party’s 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 right to a continuance is built into the rules to guard against the premature entry of summary judgment. Subsection (f) allows a party who has no specific material contradicting his adversary’s presentation to survive a summary judgment motion if he presents valid reasons justifying his failure of proof.” Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F.2d 923, 931 (11th Cir. 1989) (internal quotations and citation omitted). A party requesting such a continuance, however, is required to present an affidavit explaining specifically his failure to respond to the motion for summary judgment. Id. “The nonmovant may not simply rely on vague assertions that additional discovery will produce needed but unspecified facts but must show the court how the stay will operate to permit him to rebut, through discovery, the movant’s contentions.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted). 4 The district court did not abuse its discretion in how it managed the discovery process. As we have stated, discovery in Title VII cases is not without its limits, and the district court, after nine months, was well within its discretion to deny Goodman’s motions seeking further discovery. See Wright, 320 F.3d at 1205. In asking for records and documents extending as far back as 15 years or more, Goodman made discovery requests that the district court correctly found to be overly broad, burdensome, and irrelevant. Moreover, Goodman, on appeal, has not tried to identify particular items within his expansive request nor has he provided a theory of relevance that might narrow the scope of his requests. See id. Furthermore, the district court was well within its discretion in denying Goodman’s motion for an evidentiary hearing and stay of summary judgment and motion for partial reconsideration. In these motions, Goodman was essentially requesting that the court act as his de facto counsel in conducting discovery. See GJR Investments, 132 F.3d at 1369. The fact that Goodman lacked the financial means to conduct effective discovery does not impose a duty on the court to hold an evidentiary hearing in lieu of Goodman taking his own depositions. Regarding the court’s decision to wait until after the discovery period closed before ruling on his pending motions, Goodman fails to show how the court’s ruling resulted in substantial harm to his case. See Iraola, 325 F.3d at 1286. 5 Finally, in order to properly invoke Rule 56(f), a party is required to present an affidavit explaining specifically why he failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment ” Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F.2d 923, 931 (11th Cir. 1989). Goodman, however, failed to provide such an affidavit.