Granite State Insurance Company v. Pulliam Enterprises Inc et al, No. 3:2011cv00432 - Document 336 (N.D. Ind. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 313 Motion for Relief Under Federal Rule 56(d) Regarding Defendants Motions for Partial Summary Judgment ; denying WITH LEAVE TO REFILE following completion of the relevant discovery 298 and 303 Motions for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 12/8/15. (mc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Granite State Insurance Company v. Pulliam Enterprises Inc et al Doc. 336 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY and NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, vs. PULLIAM ENTERPRISES, INC., And ROBERT LODHOLTZ, Defendants. CAUSE NO. 3:11-CV-432 OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on “Granite State Insurance Company and New Hampshire Insurance Company’s Motion for Relief Under Federal Rule 56(d) Regarding Defendants’ Motions for Partial Summary Judgment,” filed by Granite State Insurance Company (“Granite State”) and New Hampshire Insurance Company (“NHIC”), on October 30, 2015 (DE #313). BACKGROUND Granite State and NHIC request relief under Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the pending motions for partial summary judgment filed by Pulliam (“Pulliam”) and Robert Lodholtz (“Lodholtz”). Enterprise, Inc. (DE ##298, 303.) DISCUSSION Dockets.Justia.com Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) provides that “[i]f 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). Rule 56(d) “authorizes a district court to refuse to grant a motion for summary judgment or to continue its ruling on such a motion pending further discovery if the nonmovant submits an affidavit demonstrating why it cannot yet present facts sufficient to justify its opposition to the motion.” Woods v. City of Chicago, 234 F.3d 979, 990 (7th Cir. 2000). The affidavit must outline the reasons for needing further discovery. Id. at 990; see also Deere & Co., v. Ohio Gear, 462 F.3d 701, 706 (7th Cir. 2006). Here, Granite State and NHIC did file an affidavit of Phillip K. Beth, co-counsel in this case, detailing the background of the case, the stays, the infancy of discovery, and most importantly, specifically outlining the need for additional discovery (and several depositions which have been noticed, but not scheduled yet), to respond to the motions for summary judgment. (DE #315.) This Court previously granted a similar order in response to Pulliam and Lodholtz’s motion for relief under Rule 56(d). (DE #243). In response, Pulliam and Lodholtz argue that Granite State and 2 NHIC have not identified an issue of material fact for which they need more discovery. filed a reply on (DE #324, at 2.) November 27, Granite State and NHIC 2015, contending they have “identified countless factual issues on which such discovery is needed.” (DE #332, at 1.) Here, the Court finds that Granite State and NHIC have satisfied the incomplete at requirements this stage, under the Rule 56(d). opposing party Discovery does not is have sufficient facts to oppose the pending motions, and it would be inappropriate to rule on these motions for summary judgment at this time. CONCLUSION Consequently, it is HEREBY ORDERED: (1) Granite State Insurance Company and New Hampshire Insurance Company’s Motion for Relief Under Federal Rule 56(d) Regarding Defendants’ Motions for Partial Summary Judgment (DE #313) is GRANTED; (2) Pulliam Enterprises, Inc., and Robert Lodholtz’s Motion for Partial Company (DE Summary #298) Judgment is DENIED Against WITH Granite LEAVE TO State Insurance REFILE following completion of the relevant discovery; (3) Pulliam Enterprises, Inc., and Robert Lodholtz’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against 3 New Hampshire Insurance Company (DE #303) is DENIED WITH LEAVE TO REFILE following completion of the relevant discovery. DATED: December 8, 2015 /s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge United States District Court 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
