730 F.3d 23
1st Cir.2013Background
- Rivera-Almodóvar, employed by INSEC since 1988, rose to a supervisory role, but was subjected to progressive discipline starting in 2003 and ultimately terminated on August 10, 2009 for performance-related reasons.
- She filed an ADEA and Puerto Rico law retaliation claim in federal court, asserting age discrimination and related claims against INSEC and its officials.
- The district court set a discovery deadline of October 30, 2011, with a warning that extensions require good cause and must be filed well before the deadline.
- On October 12, 2011, Rivera-Almodóvar obtained an unopposed extension to November 15, 2011 for discovery, citing an unanswered production request for documents and upcoming depositions.
- INSEC produced several documents by late October; Rivera-Almodóvar then claimed on November 15 that these documents were nonresponsive to her August 19 requests, but the discovery period soon expired.
- A magistrate judge denied a further extension on December 14, 2011, and INSEC moved for summary judgment arguing lack of age animus; Rivera-Almodóvar sought Rule 56(d) relief via a motion for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the discovery-extension denial was an abuse of discretion | Rivera-Almodóvar contends the court erred by denying more time to obtain necessary discovery. | INSEC argues extension was untimely and the plaintiff was not diligent in pursuing discovery. | No abuse of discretion; denial upheld. |
| Whether Rule 56(d) relief should have been granted | Rivera-Almodóvar claims Rule 56(d) relief was required to respond to summary judgment due to unresolved discovery. | INSEC argues plaintiff failed to demonstrate diligence and prompt pursuit of discovery; relief not warranted. | No abuse of discretion; Rule 56(d) relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (Sup. Ct. 1993) (excusable neglect depends on totality of circumstances)
- Rivera-Torres v. Rey-Hernández, 502 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2007) (Rule 56(d) and diligence requirements; cannot sleep on rights)
- Carmona v. Toledo, 215 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2000) (burden on proponent to pursue discovery diligently)
- Vélez v. Awning Windows, Inc., 375 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2004) (case-management discretion; reasonable due dates)
- Paterson-Leitch Co. v. Mass. Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co., 840 F.2d 985 (1st Cir. 1988) (Rule 56(d) relief requires diligence and justification)
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. N. Bridge Assocs., Inc., 22 F.3d 1198 (1st Cir. 1994) (liberal but not automatic use of Rule 56(d))
- Mass. Sch. of Law at Andover, Inc. v. Am. Bar Ass'n, 142 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 1998) (liberal application of Rule 56(d) with diligence)
- Jones v. Secord, 684 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) (explanation of Rule 56(f)/(d) standards)
- Nieves-Romero v. United States, 715 F.3d 375 (1st Cir. 2013) (affirms standards for Rule 56(d) relief )