United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
SCHANZLE-HASKINS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Stewart
Hansen's Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 18) and Motion
for Sanctions (d/e 31); and Defendants' Motion to Stay
its Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
(d/e 29) (Second Motion to Stay). The parties consented to
proceed before this Court. Consent to the Exercise of
Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge and
Reference Order entered May 25, 2018 (d/e 16). For the
reasons set forth below, the Motions are all DENIED.
Hansen filed the Motion for Summary Judgment first. The
Defendants responded with their First Motion to Stay (d/e
27). The Court denied the first Motion to Stay because
Defendants failed to include the affidavit or declaration
required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). Text
order entered July 3, 2018. The Defendants responded
with the Second Motion to Stay. Hansen responded by asking
for sanctions for filing the Second Motion to Stay.
request for sanctions is denied. A party responding to a
motion for summary judgment may ask for a delay in responding
to the Motion. Federal Rule 56(d) states:
(d) When Facts Are Unavailable to the
Nonmovant. If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or
declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present
facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may:
(1) defer considering the motion or deny it;
(2) allow time to obtain affidavits or
declarations or to take discovery; or
(3) issue any other appropriate order.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). The Defendants' Second Motion to
Stay asks the Court to stay, or delay, consideration of
Hansen's Motion for Summary Judgment and includes an
affidavit stating reasons for the need for delay. The
Defendants, therefore, have complied with Rule 56(d).
Sanctions are not appropriate. The request for sanctions is
Second Motion to Stay is also denied. Rule 56(d) requires a
party seeking delay in the consideration of a motion for
summary judgment to set forth “specified reasons”
why they cannot respond to the motion for summary judgment.
The Affidavit attached to the Second Motion to Stay states as
the reasons for the requested stay:
5. The Parties and Court have not conducted a scheduling
conference or set a discovery schedule pursuant to Rule 26 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
6. Further, no discovery has been undertaken by any Party.
7. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment will require
the exchange of discovery to garner facts required for
Defendants to respond.
Second Motion to Stay, attached Rule 56(d) of
Andrew J. McGinley, ¶¶ 5-7. The declaration is
insufficient because the declarant does not specify the
information needed to respond to the Motion for Summary
Judgment. He only states that Defendants want to conduct
discovery before responding. The Court sees no reasons for
discovery to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment. As
explained below, the Motion for Summary ...