Background

• Coles filed a First Amended Complaint naming the City and County of Honolulu along with HPD officers for alleged Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations (Counts II) and negligent training/supervision (Count IV).
• The City moved for summary judgment on Counts II and IV on June 18, 2014.
• Coles opposed the Merits Motion and the City replied; the court deemed the matter suitable for disposition without a hearing under Local Rules.
• The magistrate issued a 9/3/14 Sanctions Order requiring the City to produce all relevant documents and to explain deletions, with a deadline of 9/30/2014.
• The court denied the Merits Motion without prejudice under Rule 56(d) because Coles could not present essential facts due to discovery issues and sanctions, and cautioned Coles about Local Rule 56.1 compliance.
• The court noted Coles’s CSOF did not comply with Local Rule 56.1 and warned that noncompliance could result in the City’s facts being deemed admitted

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 113 F.3d 912 (9th Cir. 1996) (discretion to deny or grant further discovery under Rule 56(d))
• Blough v. Holland Realty, Inc., 574 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2009) (requirements for continuance under Rule 56(d))
• Tatum v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2006) (identification of specific facts and diligence required for 56(d) relief)
• Pfingston v. Ronan Engineering Co., 284 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2002) (diligence in discovery and showing of existing evidence)
• Kocsis v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 963 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (D. Haw. 2013) (district court discussing Rule 56(d) standards and discovery)