RHONDA CAIN, Plaintiff, v. BIRGE & HELD PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., Defendant,
Civil Action 2:23-cv-695
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
August 22, 2023
Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.; Magistrate Judge Jolson
This matter is before the Court on Defendant‘s Rule 56(d) Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff‘s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (Doc. 28). For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court STAYS briefing of Plaintiff‘s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment pending resolution of Defendant‘s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Additionally, the Court‘s stay of discovery is CONTINUED. If any of Plaintiff‘s claims survive the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, the parties are ORDERED to file, within fourteen days of the Court‘s ruling, a joint status report suggesting a proposed plan for discovery and resolution of the outstanding Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Court will then set a status conference with the parties as necessary.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brings the present action for injuries she purportedly suffered in a fall at Defendant‘s apartment complex. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff previously brought a similar action in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, which she litigated past discovery and dispositive
Plaintiff filed such a proposal (Doc. 24) and Defendant responded (Doc. 25). But within a week of that response, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, asking that the Court find that Defendant‘s negligence liability has been established as a matter of law. (Doc. 26). Defendant then brought the instant Motion, asking that the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment be held in abeyance until the Court has ruled on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and the parties have been afforded a full opportunity to conduct expert discovery. (Doc. 28). The Motion has been fully briefed (Docs. 32, 34) and is ripe for consideration.
II. STANDARD
When Facts Are Unavailable to the Nonmovant. If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may:
(1) defer considering the motion or deny it;
(2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or
(3) issue any other appropriate order.
This Rule “is intended to provide a mechanism for the parties and the court ‘to give effect to the well-established principle that the plaintiff must receive a full opportunity to conduct
Beyond this, “[a] district court has the inherent power to stay proceedings based on its authority to manage its docket efficiently.” Ohio Valley Bank Co. v. MetaBank, No. 2:19-CV-191, 2019 WL 2170681, at *2 (S.D. Ohio May 20, 2019) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
Defendant asks that Plaintiff‘s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment be deferred because Plaintiff relies on expert testimony which Defendant has had no chance to rebut. (Doc. 28 at 7–10). In particular, Defendant notes that no discovery has occurred in this case. And, in the state court litigation, Defendant says Plaintiff disclosed her expert only after the close of discovery. (Id. at 4-5). Because Plaintiff relies on this expert testimony to demonstrate proximate cause for the purposes of her Motion, Defendant says it must be given the opportunity to develop its own expert discovery to properly respond. Accordingly, it asks that the Court hold the Motion in abeyance “until: (1) this Court has issued a decision on the pending motion to dismiss; and (2) the parties
In opposing this relief, Plaintiff disputes whether expert testimony is necessary to prevail on her Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and generally attempts to litigate the merits of that Motion. (See Doc. 34). But the Court need not address the particulars of these arguments, because it is patently clear that—due to the early stage of this litigation and the stay of discovery enforced by the scheduling order—the parties have not received a full opportunity to conduct discovery. Still more, efficient docket management favors resolving the pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings before addressing discovery and the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in more detail. The scope of discovery in this case will be informed by which—if any—of Plaintiff‘s claims survive this first level of review. Indeed, should the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be granted in full, the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and the need to collect any additional discovery in this matter will be moot.
So, Defendant‘s first request—that the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment be held in abeyance until the pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings has been ruled upon—is GRANTED. The Court STAYS briefing of Plaintiff‘s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 26) pending resolution of Defendant‘s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Additionally, the Court‘s stay of discovery is CONTINUED.
Regarding Defendant‘s further request that abeyance of the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment continue until there has been “a full opportunity to conduct expert discovery,” the Court makes no ruling at this time. There remains the possibility that—should this case progress—the parties and the Court can fashion a targeted discovery plan that will allow for the resolution of threshold dispositive issues. So, in this regard only, the Motion is DENIED without prejudice.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant‘s Motion (Doc. 28) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court STAYS briefing of Plaintiff‘s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment pending resolution of Defendant‘s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Additionally, the Court‘s stay of discovery is CONTINUED. If any of Plaintiff‘s claims survive the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, the parties are ORDERED to file, within fourteen days of the Court‘s ruling, a joint status report suggesting a proposed plan for discovery and resolution of the outstanding Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Court will then set a status conference with the parties as necessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: August 22, 2023
/s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE