Summary
This memorandum opinion and supplemental scheduling order addresses a plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on a Title VII gender discrimination claim and the defendant's opposing motion for a continuance under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). The magistrate judge grants the continuance, finding that the defendant demonstrated diligence in pursuing necessary discovery to oppose the summary judgment motion. The order establishes strict deadlines and formatting requirements for the parties' subsequent briefing and evidence submissions.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should grant Amazon's motion for continuance under Rule 56(d).
Holdings
- The court GRANTS the motion for continuance under Rule 56(d).
Key quotations
“"Rule 56(d) permits further discovery to safeguard non‑moving parties from summary judgment motions that they cannot adequately oppose."”
“"To succeed on a Rule 56(d) motion, the party requesting discovery must provide an affidavit or declaration in support of the request that states with some precision the materials he hopes to obtain with further discovery, and exactly how he expects those materials will assist him in opposing summary judgment."”
Factual background
Plaintiff Chad R. Harris alleges that Amazon.com, Inc. discriminates against men by assigning them to heavy‑duty "tote runner" positions at a substantially different rate than women, and supports his claim with declarations from other employees.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on a Title VII disparate‑treatment claim. Defendant moved for a continuance under Rule 56(d) seeking additional discovery, and the court was asked to rule on that motion.