Requests for Additional Discovery Pending a Summary Judgment Motion

A party can typically only move for summary judgment in federal court after there has been an adequate time for discovery. What is “adequate” depends on the bases of the motion for summary judgment and how long the case has been pending. If a motion for summary judgment is filed, but more discovery needs to be conducted for the non-movant to respond, there are certain procedures the non-movant needs to follow to procure additional time and/or discovery.

Rule 56(d) permits a court to delay consideration of a summary judgment motion if the non-movant demonstrates that it cannot “present facts essential to justify its opposition” of the summary judgment motion. Sterk v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, 770 F.3d 618, 627-28 (7th Cir. 2014). If this showing is made, the Court may (1) defer considering the motion for summary judgment or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3) “issue any other appropriate order.”

Contact.

Related Articles

Premises Liability: Third-Party Criminal Acts

November 22, 2023

As a general rule, if a customer/invitee of a business is harmed by a third-party criminal act, the business is not responsible. The rationale for this rule is that criminal acts are rarely foreseeable. Early v. Dunn, 670 S.W.3d 47, 51 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023). There are a number of exceptions. First, a duty arises…

Read More

Mootness, Exceptions

October 19, 2023

Courts generally shy away from rendering decisions in moot cases. A case is moot when “the question presented for decision seeks a judgment upon some matter which, if the judgment was rendered, would not have any practical effect upon any then existing controversy.” DCM v. Pemiscot County Juvenile Office, 578 S.W.3d 776, 780 (Mo. 2019). There…

Read More

Comity, Multiple Lawsuits, Litigation

October 11, 2023

In complex situations, it is not uncommon for multiple lawsuits to be pending in multiple jurisdictions. When this occurs, one court, in the interests of comity, may allow the other court to handle the entire dispute. At the state level in Missouri, comity is not an ironclad rule, but a rule of “practice, convenience, and…

Read More

Contracts: General versus Specific Provisions

October 2, 2023

Parties are bound to the terms of the contract they sign, unless induced by fraud, duress, or undue influence. Lehman v. Automotive Investments, LLC, 608 S.W.3d 733, 738 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020). In analyzing contracts, courts focus on the plain and ordinary meaning of the language used. Id. Often times, however, a conflict can arise between what…

Read More
Scroll to Top