WILKINS
v.
RCI, LLC
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a motion for summary judgment is premature if the opposing party has not had an adequate opportunity for discovery.
Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment in a TCPA action. Defendant moved to defer consideration of the motion, arguing it needed to depose the …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Adequate Opportunity For Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause comes before the Court on Defendant’s Time-Sensitive Motion, Pursuant to Rule 56(d), to Defer Consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment to Allow Time for Plaintiff’s Deposition (the “Motion”) (Doc. 51), filed September 20, 2023. Defendant alternatively requests an enlargement of time to respond to Plaintiff’s pending motion for summary judgment. (Id.) Plaintiff has responded in opposition. (Doc. 55.) Upon consideration, the Motion is due to be granted in part. This is a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) action brought by pro se Plaintiff Brian Wilkins against Defendant RCI, LLC. (Doc. 34.) Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment (“MSJ”) on September 2, 2023. (Doc. 43.) Discovery in this matter closes on January 2, 2023 (Doc. 42), and Plaintiff has not yet been deposed. The undersigned tolled the time for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s MSJ until the instant Motion could be resolved. (Doc. 52.) Defendant asserts that it needs additional time to depose Plaintiff and for the Court to resolve its pending Motion to Compel regarding outstanding written discovery (Doc. 46). (Doc. 51 at 1–2.) It asks that the Court not require it to respond
to Plaintiff’s MSJ until thirty days after Plaintiff is deposed, so through December 8, 2023.1 (Id.) Plaintiff responds that Defendant failed to confer in good faith on the instant Motion and further asserts that Defendant has not set forth a legally sufficient rationale for the extension. (Doc. 55.) The undersigned finds that the MSJ is premature. The Eleventh Circuit has held
that “summary judgment should not be granted until the party opposing the motion has had an adequate opportunity for discovery.” Snook v. Tr. Co. of Ga. Bank of Savannah, N.A., 859 F. 2d 865, 870 (11th Cir. 1988); see also Carter v. HSBC Mortg. Servs., Inc., 680 Fed. App’x 890, 892 (11th Cir. 2017) (unpublished). When essential discovery
remains outstanding, the Court has found it appropriate to defer ruling on a motion for summary judgment until after the discovery period has closed. Sphar v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., No. 6:16–cv–2221–Orl–40TBS, 2017 WL 6406837, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 15, 2017) (denying without prejudice as premature a motion for summary judgment, to allow time to depose critical witness). Here, Defendant has identified outstanding
discovery, most notably Plaintiff’s deposition, that it needs in order to adequately respond to Plaintiff’s MSJ. Thus, Defendant has established a need for the requested
[...] KIDD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Snook v. Tr. Co. OF Ga. Bank OF Savannah, N.A., 859 F.2d 865 (11th Cir. 1988)