3opportunity to gather the necessary information required to respond in opposition to theDefendants’ Motion.For just this reason Rule 56(f) states that:[i]f a party opposing the motion shows by affidavit that, for specified reasons, itcannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) deny themotion; (2) order a continuance to enable affidavits to be obtained, depositions tobe taken, or other discovery to be undertaken; or (3) issue any other just order.See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f).
While Rule 56(c) allows a party to move for summary judgment “at any time until 30days after the close of all discovery,” in general, “[s]ummary judgment should not . . . ordinarilybe granted before discovery has been completed.” See Alabama Farm Bureau Mutual CasualtyCo. v. American Fidelity Life Ins. Co., 606 F.2d 602, 609 (5th Cir. 1979);
Snook, 859 F.2d at870 (“This court has often noted that summary judgment should not be granted until the partyopposing the motion has had an adequate opportunity for discovery.”); Metropolitan Life Ins.Co. v. Bancorp Services, LLC, 527 F.3d 1330, 1336-37, and fn3 (Fed. Cir. 2008)(noting that it is“the prevailing rule in all circuits” that “the parties must be afforded adequate time for generaldiscovery before being required to respond to a motion for summary judgment”); and Thomas v.Maui Tacos/Tiki Takiz, LLC, 2005 WL 2002079 (M.D. Ala. 2005)(granting 56(f) relief whereno discovery had been conducted).Although it is ordinarily the burden of the non-moving party to show that specificdiscovery is needed and that such discovery would or could show a disputed issue of materialfact, Snook, 859 F.2d at 870 (noting that where “documents or other discovery sought would be
While Rule 56(f) specifically calls for an affidavit, in the Eleventh Circuit, “a party opposing a motion forsummary judgment need not file an affidavit pursuant to Rule 56(f) in order to invoke the protection of that Rule.”See Allen v U.S. EEOC Office, 2010 WL 653329 *2 (11th Cir. 2010)(quoting Snook v. Trust Co. of Ga. Bank of Savannah, N.A., 859 F.2d 865, 871 (11th Cir. 1988)). Instead, “written representation by plaintiff’s lawyer, anofficer of the court, is in the spirit of Rule 56(f).” Snook, 859 F.2d at 871.
The decisions of the former Fifth Circuit entered before October 1, 1981 are binding precedent in this Circuit. SeeBonner v. City of Pritchard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981).
Case 9:10-cv-80062-KAM Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/23/2010 Page 3 of 8