Mark Roberts v. Boots Smith Oilfield Services, LLC, 200 So. 3d 1022

Mark Roberts, an at-will salesman for Warrior Energy, was terminated in March 2013 and sued Warrior, officer Bill Jenkins, Jason Smith, and Boots Smith Oilfield Services alleging wrongful termination, tortious interference, civil conspiracy, and IIED.
Roberts claimed he was fired in retaliation for reporting suspected misuse of company resources (Better-Half Industries) and because Jenkins/Smith were upset he purchased competing pipeline-construction assets.
Pretrial discovery was incomplete when defendants moved for summary judgment: Roberts and Warrior’s 30(b)(6), Jenkins’s, and a key witness (John Parker) depositions were noticed and scheduled for late September–October 2014 but never taken.
Defendants moved for summary judgment in late Aug.–Sept. 2014; Roberts filed Rule 56(f) motions seeking a continuance so pending depositions could proceed and attached Parker’s affidavit (filed just before the hearing), which the trial court excluded as untimely.
The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing all claims; Roberts appealed. The Supreme Court of Mississippi held the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 56(f) continuances and reversed and remanded for completion of discovery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Roberts’s M.R.C.P. 56(f) motions to defer summary-judgment rulings until discovery was complete	Roberts: discovery was incomplete, key depositions were scheduled and necessary to rebut movants’ evidence (including to show retaliatory motive and interference)	Defendants: Roberts was not diligent; the existing record (Roberts’s and Tew’s depositions) and lack of specific evidence make further discovery unnecessary	Reversed — denial of 56(f) was an abuse of discretion; remanded for completion of discovery
Whether summary judgment should be entered on the merits given the record presented	Roberts: Parker’s affidavit and expected deposition testimony of defendants/witnesses would show genuine issues of material fact	Defendants: Roberts has no specific evidence of interference or conspiracy; Parker’s affidavit was untimely and insufficient	Not decided on the merits — court declined to reach merits and permitted defendants to renew motions after discovery is complete

Prescott v. Leaf River Forest Prods., Inc., 740 So. 2d 301 (Miss. 1999) (Rule 56(f) protection where needed facts are in movant’s possession)
Owens v. Thomae, 759 So. 2d 1117 (Miss. 1999) (completion of discovery may be necessary before ruling on summary judgment)
Smith v. H.C. Bailey Cos., 477 So. 2d 224 (Miss. 1985) (summary judgment prematurely granted when discovery resisted and motion filed)
Treasure Bay Corp. v. Ricard, 967 So. 2d 1235 (Miss. 2007) (reversal where plaintiff diligently sought deposition whose testimony could create material factual issues)
Cunningham v. Lanier, 555 So. 2d 685 (Miss. 1989) (fair opportunity to oppose summary judgment requires viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
Marx v. Truck Renting & Leasing Ass’n, Inc., 520 So. 2d 1333 (Miss. 1987) (Rule 56(f) not for litigants who are lazy or dilatory)