UNITED STATES

v.

AMERICAN GENERAL CONSTRUCTION, INC.

f/u/b/o VARCO PRUDEN BUILDINGS, a division of BLUESCOPE BUILDINGS NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:21-cv-615-MMH-LLL

AMERICAN GENERAL

CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

RQ CONSTRUCTION, LLC,

Cross-Claimant,

vs.

AMERICAN GENERAL

CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

Cross-Defendant.

RQ CONSTRUCTION, LLC,

Third-Party Plaintiff,

vs.

JOHNNY COIT,

Third-Party Defendant.

O R D E R

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants’ Time-Sensitive Motion for Relief from Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment Under Local Rule 3.01(e) (Doc. 61; Motion), filed December 16, 2021. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the Motion. See Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Time- Sensitive Motion for Relief from Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 69), filed December 29, 2021. Accordingly, this matter is ripe for review. Plaintiff initiated this action on June 18, 2021, and filed the operative complaint on July 6, 2021. See Complaint for Damages (Doc. 1); Amended Complaint for Damages (Doc. 10; Amended Complaint). After consideration of the parties’ Case Management Report (Doc. 42), the Court on September 16, 2021, entered a scheduling order. See Case Management and Scheduling Order and Referral to Mediation (Doc. 43; CMSO). On December 14, 2021, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment against Defendants on Count III of the Amended Complaint. See Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Doc. 58; Summary Judgment Motion) at 2.

Two days later, Defendants filed the Motion in which they request an extension of time to respond to the Summary Judgment Motion. See Motion at 2–3. According to Defendants, they cannot properly respond to the Summary Judgment Motion at this time “because essential facts are still being discovered.” Id. at 2; see Affidavit of Richard Pinson II (Doc. 62-1; Pinson Affidavit) at 3–6 (outlining the discovery that Defendants assert is still needed). “The law in [the Eleventh] [C]ircuit is clear: the party opposing a motion for summary judgment should be permitted an adequate opportunity to complete discovery prior to consideration of [a motion for summary judgment].” Jones v. City of Columbus, 120 F. 3d 248, 253 (11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam); Snook v. Tr. Co. of Ga. Bank of Savannah, 859 F. 2d 865, 870–71 (11th Cir. 1988) (instructing that “summary judgment should not be granted until the party opposing the motion has had an adequate opportunity for discovery” and recognizing that opposing parties have a “right to utilize the discovery process to discover the facts necessary to justify their opposition to” a summary judgment motion); Kelsey v. Withers, 718 F. App’x 817, 820–21 (11th Cir. 2017) (affirming the district court’s decision to strike a premature summary judgment motion and explaining that “‘[d]istrict courts have unquestionable authority to control their own dockets,’ including ‘broad discretion in deciding how best to manage the cases before them’” (quoting Smith v. Psychiatric Sols., Inc., 750

F. 3d 1253, 1262 (11th Cir. 2014))); Bradley v. Branch Banking & Tr. Co., No. 3:15-cv-00012-TCB-RGV, 2015 WL 11422296, at *8 (N.D. Ga. July 30, 2015) (collecting cases), adopted by 2015 WL 11455759, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 24, 2015). Indeed, fairness to the non-movant dictates that “summary judgment may only be decided upon an adequate record.” WSB-TV v. Lee, 842 F. 2d 1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 1988). Specifically, Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)) provides: 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. Rule 56(d). As such, a Rule 56(d) motion “must be supported by an affidavit which sets forth with particularity the facts the moving party expects to discover and how those facts would create a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.” Garner v. City of Ozark, 587 F. App’x 515, 518 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Harbert Int’l, Inc. v. James, 157 F. 3d 1271, 1280 (11th Cir. 1998)). Whether to grant or deny a Rule 56(d) request “requires the court to balance the movant’s demonstrated need for discovery against the burden such discovery will place on the opposing party.” See Harbert Int’l, Inc., 157 F. 3d at 1280.1 Consistent with this authority, the Court finds good cause for Defendants’ request that they not be required to respond to the Summary Judgment Motion

1. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that

A. Plaintiff's Motion for Final Summary Judgment (Doc. 58) is DENIED without prejudice. B. Plaintiff may file a renewed motion for summary judgment as to Count III of the Amended Complaint on or after June 30, 2022.

2. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, on January 19, 2022.

United States District Judge

1c30 Copies to: Counsel of Record Pro Se Parties

_6-