Harrison v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol
281 F.R.D. 49
D.D.C.2012Background
- Harrison sues the Office of the Architect of the Capitol for employment discrimination and retaliation.
- After discovery, AOC moves for summary judgment; Harrison files a Rule 56(d) relief motion labeled as 56(f).
- Court construes Harrison's motion as seeking relief under Rule 56(d) and evaluates it de novo.
- Court holds Harrison failed to satisfy Rule 56(d) for five independent reasons.
- Key failures include lack of concrete discovery identification, no discovery plan, and no essential discovery demonstrated.
- Court notes the OIG Report was already available and cannot serve as basis for relief; Rule 56(d) affidavit deficient; relief denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harrison shows need for 56(d) relief with specific discovery. | Harrison asserts need for additional discovery to oppose summary judgment. | AOC contends no specific, concrete discovery was identified. | Rule 56(d) relief denied for lack of specificity. |
| Whether Harrison identified a concrete discovery plan. | Harrison would pursue discovery to support her opposition. | No specific discovery plan was articulated. | Relief denied for lack of a concrete plan. |
| Whether the requested discovery is essential to opposition. | Discovery would alter the court's determination. | No showing of essential or potentially decisive discovery. | Relief denied; discovery not shown essential. |
| Whether speculative discovery requests are permissible under 56(d). | Discovery would yield relevant evidence. | Cannot rely on speculative evidence; must show likely material facts. | Relief denied; speculation not enough. |
| Whether Harrison's 56(d) affidavit satisfies the requirement to identify discoverable facts. | Declaration supports need for relief. | Declaration fails to specify facts or explain why they preclude summary judgment. | Relief denied; affidavit deficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pardo-Kronemann v. Donovan, 601 F.3d 599 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (discretionary ruling on Rule 56(d) relief)
- Strang v. U.S. Arms Control & Disarmament Agency, 864 F.2d 859 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (concreteness and specificity required for discovery requests)
- Messina v. Krakower, 439 F.3d 755 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (requirements for identifying discovery and essentiality)
- Dunning v. Quander, 508 F.3d 8 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (insufficient specificity supporting Rule 56(d) relief)
- Estate of Parson v. Palestinian Auth., 715 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D.D.C. 2010) (generalized discovery requests insufficient)
- Moses v. Dodaro, 774 F. Supp. 2d 206 (D.D.C. 2011) (discovery would have to show discrimination materiality)
- Carpenter v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 174 F.3d 231 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (district court may deny extra discovery when not properly identified)
- Cheyenne Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma v. United States, 558 F.3d 592 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (discovery needs must be demonstrated as essential)
- Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Stroh Cos., Inc., 265 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2001) (no material evidence expected from speculative discovery)