Doyle

Doyle v. City of Medford

Good Law
327 F. App'x 702
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 4, 2009No. 07-35753California380 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiffs, who are former employees of Defendant City of Medford, argue that the City’s policy of denying health insurance coverage to retirees violates due process 1 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”). Plaintiffs assert that the district court abused its discretion in denying Plaintiffs’ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) motion to *703 defer ruling on Defendant’s summary judgment motion until Plaintiffs were able to conduct more discovery on the age discrimination claim. We agree.

We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision on a Rule 56(f) motion. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes, 323 F.3d 767, 773 (9th Cir.2003). When a summary judgment motion “is filed so early in the litigation, before a party has had any realistic opportunity to pursue discovery relating to its theory of the case, district courts should grant any Rule 56(f) motion fairly freely.” Id. In order to prevail on a Rule 56(f) motion, the “requesting party 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…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.