Williams v. Merle Pharmacy Inc, 1:15-cv-01262

Background

Williams sued Merle Pharmacy, Central Illinois Medical Equipment, and William Martin alleging retaliatory discharge and wage claims; defendants moved for partial summary judgment on Counts VII–IX (common-law retaliatory discharge, Illinois Whistleblower Act, Adult Protective Services Act).
Defendants argued Williams cannot show a causal link because there is no evidence Martin knew of her protected reports about alleged financial exploitation of an elderly customer prior to her termination.
Discovery was ongoing under a schedule the parties agreed to (discovery cut-off April 3, 2017); defendants deposed Williams and exchanged written discovery; Williams had not deposed others or sought subpoenas relevant to Martin’s knowledge.
Williams filed a Rule 56(d) request to defer consideration of the summary judgment motion pending targeted discovery (primarily depositions of Martin and several employees/attorneys) to develop evidence of Martin’s knowledge and motive.
The court found Williams was not dilatory in discovery generally but rejected broad, speculative “fishing expedition” discovery; however it allowed a focused, limited discovery opportunity—specifically, deposition of Martin—because his knowledge is central to the causation element.
The court temporarily stayed the summary judgment motion, denied Williams’ 56(d) motion in part and granted it in part, and ordered the parties to submit a limited expedited discovery plan within 14 days (by July 13, 2016).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment should be decided now or deferred under Rule 56(d)	Williams: discovery remains open and she needs targeted depositions to show Martin knew of her protected activity	Defendants: plaintiff has not shown facts or diligence to warrant deferral; no evidence exists that Martin knew	Court: 56(d) motion partially granted — limited discovery allowed (deposition of Martin); broad discovery denied; summary judgment temporarily stayed
Whether plaintiff can show causal connection between whistleblowing and termination	Williams: further discovery will produce evidence that Martin knew of her reports and retaliated	Defendants: record lacks evidence Martin knew or intended to discover reports; plaintiff has no personal knowledge	Court: causal link not yet established on record; permitted limited discovery to pursue evidence from Martin only
Whether broad testimonial/document discovery is permitted post-summary-judgment motion	Williams: seeks deposits/subpoenas of many employees, attorneys, and third parties	Defendants: such expansive discovery is speculative and constitutes a fishing expedition	Court: denied carte blanche; allowed only focused discovery tied to specific, reasonable basis (Martin’s knowledge)
Whether plaintiff was dilatory and thus undeserving of 56(d) relief	Williams: relied on agreed discovery schedule and counsel’s workload; engaged in some discovery	Defendants: plaintiff failed to pursue relevant discovery earlier	Held: court found no dilatory conduct warranting denial of relief but required plaintiff to show specific basis for any additional discovery beyond Martin

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
American Nurses’ Ass’n v. State of Illinois, 783 F.2d 716 (7th Cir. 1986) (summary judgment before discovery; Rule 56 timing)
Grayson v. O’Neill, 308 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2002) (56(d) diligence and required showing)
Davis v. G.N. Mortgage Corp., 396 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 2005) (rejecting fishing expeditions in post-summary-judgment discovery requests)
Deere & Co. v. Ohio Gear, 462 F.3d 701 (7th Cir. 2006) (56(d) requirements and relief options)
Woods v. City of Chicago, 234 F.3d 979 (7th Cir. 2000) (need to show specific discovery likely to produce material facts)
Kalis v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 231 F.3d 1049 (7th Cir. 2000) (denial of 56(f) for lack of diligence)