United States District Court, C.D. California
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE COMPANY AS RECEIVER FOR FIRST BANK OF BEVERLY HILLS, Plaintiff,
LARRY B. FAIGIN, CRAIG KOLASINSKI, ERIC ROSA, ANNETTE VECCHIO, HOWARD AMSTER, WILLIAM D. KING, STEPHEN GLENNON, ROBERT KANNER, KATHLEEN KELLOGG AND JOHN LANNAN, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR CONTINUATION OF HEARING AND RELATED BRIEFING SCHEDULE [Dkt. No. 131]
DEAN D. PREGERSON, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Federal Deposit Insurance Company as Receiver for First Bank of Beverly Hills ("Plaintiff")'s Ex Parte Application for Continuation of Hearing and Related Briefing Schedule. (Dkt. No. 131.) Defendants Larry B. Faigin, William D. King, and Stephen Glennon ("Defendants") oppose the Application. (Dkt. No. 140.) Having considered the parties' submissions, the court will grant the Application in part and modify it as set forth in the following order.
On May 19, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgement, which they noticed for June 23, 2014. (Dkt. No. 125.) In the instant Application, Plaintiff requests that the hearing date and briefing schedule for Defendant's summary judgment motion be continued under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) so that it has an opportunity to conduct further discovery in support of its opposition.
II. Legal Standard
Rule 56(d) provides:
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.
Although Rule 56(d) "facially gives judges the discretion to disallow discovery when the non-moving party cannot yet submit evidence supporting its opposition, the Supreme Court has restated the rule as requiring, rather than merely permitting, discovery where the nonmoving party has not had the opportunity to discover information that is essential to its opposition.'" Metabolife Int'l, Inc. v. Wornick , 264 F.3d 832, 846 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 250 n. 5 (1986).
A party requesting time to conduct discovery before responding to a summary judgment motion must show: "(1) it has set forth in affidavit form the specific facts it hopes to elicit from further discovery; (2) the facts sought exist; and (3) the sought-after facts are essential to oppose summary judgment." Family Home & Fin. Ctr., Inc. ...