Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Laurent v. Price Water House Coopers LLP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


March 27, 2009

TIMOTHY D. LAURENT, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
PRICE WATER HOUSE COOPERS LLP, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: George B. Daniels, District Judge

ORDER

Plaintiffs moved, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f), for an order refusing defendants' application for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs lack the discovery necessary to oppose the motion.*fn1 Plaintiffs filed their Rule 56(f) motion simultaneously with their filing of a twenty-five page opposition memorandum (with an additional seventeen pages of attached exhibits) substantively opposing the merits of defendants' summary judgment motion.*fn2

"[A] party's failure to seek discovery under Rule 56(f) before responding to a summary judgment motion is 'itself sufficient grounds to reject a claim that the opportunity for discovery was inadequate.'" New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Ret. Fund v. Express Servs., Inc., 426 F.3d 640, 648 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Williams v. R.H. Donnelley Corp., 368 F.3d 123, 126 n.1 (2d Cir. 2004)). Plaintiffs have failed to make the requisite showing that "it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition." See, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f). On the contrary, plaintiffs maintain that "[t]he facts the Court needs to deny [defendants'] motion are few and undisputed[.]" (Pls.' Am. Mem. Opp'n Summm. J. 2). Plaintiffs argue that "if the correct substantive legal standard were applied, Plaintiffs ha[ve] no need for discovery to oppose [defendants'] motion", but "if the Court were undecided as to the correct standard, discovery would assist Plaintiffs show (sic) the Court that Defendants were wrong[.]" (Pls.' Reply Mem. Supp. Rule 56(f) Mot. 2, 3) (emphasis in original). Plaintiffs pray that "if the Court does not deny [defendants'] motion on the merits, the instant motion should be granted." (Id. at 10). The employment of such alternative motion practice, by the plaintiffs, is improper.

Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f), is denied.

SO ORDERED:


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.