Cain v. Birge & Held Property Management, L.L.C., 2:23-cv-00695

Plaintiff Rhonda Cain sued Birge & Held Property Management after an alleged fall at the defendant's apartment complex; she had earlier filed a similar state-court action that was dismissed before trial after discovery occurred there.
Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings in this federal case, arguing duplication of the state action; the Court stayed discovery pending that motion.
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking a finding that negligence liability is established as a matter of law, relying in part on expert testimony disclosed in the prior state case.
Defendant moved under Rule 56(d) to hold the summary-judgment motion in abeyance until the Court decides the judgment-on-the-pleadings motion and the parties can conduct expert discovery (including deposing plaintiff’s expert).
The Court found the case is at an early stage and that discovery has been stayed; it granted the requested abeyance as to resolution of the judgment-on-the-pleadings motion but denied, without prejudice, the request to delay further until complete expert discovery.
The Court stayed briefing on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, continued the discovery stay, and ordered the parties to file a joint status report proposing a discovery/briefing plan within 14 days after the Court rules on the motion for judgment on the pleadings if any claims survive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to defer consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment under Rule 56(d) because no discovery has occurred	Cain contends expert testimony may not be necessary and primarily disputes merits of the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment	Birge & Held argues it lacks opportunity to rebut plaintiff's expert and no discovery has been conducted here; needs time for expert discovery	Court granted deferment: stayed briefing on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and continued stay of discovery until resolution of the motion for judgment on the pleadings
Whether to hold the partial-summary-judgment motion in abeyance until the parties have had a “full opportunity” to conduct expert discovery (including expert deposition)	Cain disputes that full expert discovery is necessary to resolve the motion	Birge & Held seeks an extended abeyance until it can complete expert discovery and depose plaintiff’s expert	Court denied this request without prejudice; left open a targeted discovery plan if the case proceeds and ordered a joint status report within 14 days after the judgment-on-the-pleadings ruling if claims survive

Cardinal v. Metrish, 564 F.3d 794 (6th Cir. 2009) (Rule 56(d) protects a party’s right to a full opportunity for discovery before summary judgment)
Ball v. Union Carbide Corp., 385 F.3d 713 (6th Cir. 2004) (denying Rule 56(d) relief and ruling on summary judgment without adequate discovery may be an abuse of discretion)
White's Landing Fisheries, Inc. v. Bucholzer, 29 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 1994) (improper to grant summary judgment where the nonmovant lacked sufficient opportunity for discovery)