Defendants. Court File No. 14CV4081KES Case Type: Civil Rights / 1983
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OPPOSING DEFENDANTS RULE 56(d) MOTION AND ALTERNATE RULE 6(b) MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
INTRODUCTION
This dispute is a purely legal one. Whether loving and committed same-sex couples are entitled to equal protection, due process, and the rights to marry and travel does not necessitate factual discovery. 1 Defendants have not identified a single item of factual discovery necessary to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact could preclude summary judgment; nor have they shown good cause to delay responding. Nevertheless, they ask for an extension while they are developing [their] defense and determining what discovery is necessary[.] (Doc. 28 at 3). Essentially, they ask this Court for additional time to figure out whether any facts might exist to support their ongoing discriminatory treatment of Plaintiffs and other same-sex couples throughout this State and District. Plaintiffs respectfully oppose Defendants motion in its entirety.
1 Multiple courts have ruled in favor of plaintiffs with similar claims on summary judgment where no factual discovery had been conducted. See, e.g., Henry v. Himes, No. 1:14cv129, 2014 WL 1418395 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 14, 2014) Latta v. Otter, No. 1:13-cv-00482-CWD, 2014 190999 (D. Idaho May 13, 2014); Baskin v. Bogan, No. 1:14-cv-00355-RLY-TAB, 2014 WL 2884868 (S.D. Ind. June 25, 2014); Love v. Beshear, No. 3:13-CV-750-H, 2014 WL 2957671 (W.D. Ky. July 1, 2014). Case 4:14-cv-04081-KES Document 30 Filed 07/15/14 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 358 2 DISCUSSION A. Legal Standard for Relief Under Rule 56(d) Rule 56(d) ensures a party a fair chance to respond by, inter alia, permitting a continuance of a summary judgment motion until the opposing party has had adequate opportunity to conduct discovery and obtain facts essential to justify its opposition to the motion. Johnson v. ADP Screening & Selection Serv., 768 F. Supp. 2d 979, 982 (D. Minn. 2011); see also United States ex rel. Bernard v. Casino Magic Corp., 293 F.3d 419, 426 (8th Cir. 2002); St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. United States, 617 F.2d 1293, 1299-1300 (8th Cir. 1980). While a party must have a fair chance to respond to a summary judgment motion, a party must show that, for specified reasons, he cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition. Johnson, 768 F. Supp. 2d at 982 (emphases added). The Eighth Circuit has indicated that: Rule 56[(d)] is not a shield that can be raised to block a motion for summary judgment without even the slightest showing by the opposing party that his opposition is meritorious. A party invoking its protections must do so in good faith by affirmatively demonstrating why he cannot respond to a movants affidavits as otherwise required by Rule 56[(c)] and how postponement of a ruling on the motion will enable him, by discovery or other means, to rebut the movants showing of the absence of a genuine issue of fact. Where...a party fails to carry his burden under Rule 56[(d)], postponement of a ruling is unjustified.
Willmar Poultry Co. v. Morton-Norwich Prod., Inc., 520 F.2d 289, 297 (8th Cir. 1975). Accordingly, a party cannot prevail on a Rule 56(d) motion merely by pointing out that no discovery has occurred. The Defendants here must show that discovery is required Case 4:14-cv-04081-KES Document 30 Filed 07/15/14 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 359 3 to establish specific facts necessary to oppose the motion for summary judgment. See Toben v. Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC, 751 F.3d 888, 895 (8th Cir. 2014) (citing Duffy v. Wolle, 123 F.3d 1026, 1041 (8th Cir.1997) ([I]t is well settled that Rule 56( [d] ) does not condone a fishing expedition where a plaintiff merely hopes to uncover some possible evidence.)), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1137 (1998) (abrogated on other grounds); United States v. C.E. Light, 766 F.2d 394, 397 (8th Cir. 1985) (the party seeking additional discovery must affirmatively demonstrate how it will allow her to rebut the movant's showing of the absence of a genuine issue of fact); Moore's Federal PracticeCivil, 56.102[2] (3d ed.2013) (Specific facts sought must be identified. Mere speculation that there is some relevant evidence not yet discovered will never suffice.). Rule 56(d) requires that a party file an affidavit or declaration to support its assertion that for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d); see also Ray v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 609 F.3d 917, 923 (8th Cir. 2010) (citing Humphreys v. Roche Biomedical Labs., Inc., 990 F.2d 1078, 1081 (8th Cir. 1993). The Eighth Circuit mandates that this affidavit describe, inter alia, (1) what facts are sought and how they are to be obtained and, (2) how these facts are reasonably expected to raise a genuine issue of material fact. See, e.g., Johnson v. United States, 534 F.3d 958, 965 (8th Cir. 2008). Moreover, [a]ttorney advocacy cannot be substituted for a Rule 56[(d)] affidavit. Nuckles v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 4:06CV00178-WRW, Case 4:14-cv-04081-KES Document 30 Filed 07/15/14 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 360 4 2006 WL 3420338, at *1 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 28, 2009) (citing Radich v. Goode, 886 F.2d 1391, 1393-95 (3d Cir. 1989)). B. The Defendants Have Failed to Meet The Requirements of Rule 56(d) The Affidavit of Giedd (Doc. 28-1) submitted with the Defendants Rule 56(d) Motion (the Rule 56(d) Affidavit) fails the elements required under Eighth Circuit law. 1. The Affidavit Does Not Identify Specific Facts Necessary to the Defendants Opposition of Plaintiffs Motion
The Rule 56(d) Affidavit makes generalized references that the State is considering undertaking discovery, but the Affidavit does not identify any specific discoverable facts essential to justify its opposition to Plaintiffs motion. Defendants counsel simply asserts that this case is in its early stages and that Defendants have difficulty identifying specific facts they might uncover. Doc. 28 at 3. While Defendants go on to state that they might uncover facts about the history of the States marriage laws and governmental interests in the States marriage bans and that such facts might be relevant, id., they altogether fail to address how such facts are essential to resist summary judgment Toben, 751 F.3d 888, 895. That a discovery record might establish some facts, but not necessarily anything relevant to opposing summary judgment, does not give rise to relief under Rule 56(d). Were that the case, the ability to thwart a summary judgment motion under Rule 56(d) would be enabled only by the non-moving partys allegation that discovery is incomplete and that discovery might help them oppose summary judgment; such an Case 4:14-cv-04081-KES Document 30 Filed 07/15/14 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 361 5 argument overly broadens Rule 56(d), which concerns the availability of specific facts essential to the opposition of the motion. 2. The Rule 56(d) Declaration Does Not Identify How Additional Facts Could Create a Genuine Issue of Material Fact.
Furthermore, Defendants do not explain how any discoverable facts would be material, nor do they explain how such facts would create any genuine issue that could preclude summary judgment. Perhaps this is unsurprising; without identifying any discoverable fact necessary to support their opposition, as discussed above, Defendants cannot demonstrate how such a fact would create any genuine issue over whether loving and committed same-sex couples are entitled to equal protection, due process, and the rights to marry and travel. C. Defendants Have Not Shown Good Cause for Extending Their Deadline to Respond to Plaintiffs Motion
Defendants move in the alternative for an extension of time pursuant to Rule 6(b). See generally, Doc. 28. Although required to do so by Rule 6(b), Defendants fail to specify what good cause exists to support their request. Instead, Defendants simply point to their argument in support of their Rule 56(d) Motion. See Doc. 28 at 5. Accordingly, for the same reasons outlined above, Plaintiffs urge this Court to deny Defendants alternative Motion in its entirety. Dated this 14th day of July, 2014.
Case 4:14-cv-04081-KES Document 30 Filed 07/15/14 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 362 6 MADIA LAW LLC /s/Joshua A. Newville . Joshua A. Newville Admitted pro hac vice 345 Union Plaza 333 Washington Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Phone: (612) 349-2743 Fax: (612) 235-3357 joshuanewville@madialaw.com
NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS /s/Shannon P. Minter . Shannon P. Minter Christopher F. Stoll Admitted pro hac vice 870 Market Street, Suite 370 San Francisco, California 94102 Phone: (415) 392-6257 Fax: (415) 392-8442 sminter@nclrights.org
BURD AND VOIGT LAW OFFICE
/s/Debra Voigt . Debra Voigt SD Bar No. 2473 601 S. Cliff Ave, Suite A Sioux Falls, SD 57103 Phone: (605) 332-4351 Fax: (605) 334-6844 debra@burdandvoigt.com
Case 4:14-cv-04081-KES Document 30 Filed 07/15/14 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 363