Armored Republic LLC v. Diamond Age Corporation ( 2021 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Armored Republic LLC, No. CV-20-01366-PHX-DLR 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Diamond Age Corporation, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 This matter arises out of a dispute over whether the parties entered into a three-year 17 contract (the “Agreement”) about the sale of steel ballistic helmets. (Doc. 39-1 at 4.) 18 Pending before the Court are Defendant Diamond Age Corporation’s motion for summary 19 judgment (“MSJ”) (Doc. 72) and Plaintiff Armored Republic LLC’s motion for relief 20 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) (Doc. 73). The Court suspended the 21 MSJ briefing schedule pending resolution of the Rule 56(d) motion, which is fully briefed. 22 Under Rule 56(d), “[i]f a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for 23 specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition,” the Court may 24 issue any appropriate order, including deferring consideration of the motion for summary 25 judgment or denying it, or allowing “time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take 26 discovery.” Fed R. Civ. P. 56(d). The party requesting relief under Rule 56(d) must set 27 forth in its affidavit or declaration: (1) “specific facts it hopes to elicit from further 28 discovery,” (2) that “the facts sought exist,” and (3) that “the sought-after facts are essential 1 to oppose summary judgment.” Family Home & Finance Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan 2 Mortg. Corp., 525 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2008) (discussing former Rule 56(f)). Rule 56(d) 3 relief should generously be granted where a summary judgment motion is filed early in the 4 litigation, “before a party has had any realistic opportunity to pursue discovery relating to 5 its theory of the case.” Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of 6 the Fort Peck Reservation, 323 F.3d 767, 773-74 (9th Cir. 2003). Unless the non-moving 7 party has failed to diligently pursue discovery, such relief should be granted “almost as a 8 matter of course.” Id. (quoting Wichita Falls Office Ass’n v. Banc One Corp., 978 F.2d 9 915, 919 n.4 (5th Cir. 1992)). 10 Plaintiff seeks—and has sought for over a year now—discovery related to 11 establishing that the parties intended to enter the Agreement and a reasonable price for the 12 helmets under the Agreement. (Docs. 73, 73-1.) The Rule 56(d) motion identifies 13 unanswered interrogatories specific documents, and individuals to be deposed (Doc. 40 at 14 19-22), which the Court has already found relevant and ordered Defendant to produce 15 (Doc. 45). Defendant does not dispute the existence of any documents or individuals 16 sought in discovery.1 (Doc. 77.) Plaintiff has pursued discovery diligently, filing motions 17 asking the Court to compel discovery. (Doc. 40.) The discovery Plaintiff seeks is essential 18 to oppose the MSJ, which argues that the Agreement is unenforceable because the parties 19 never intended to enter into the agreement and had no reasonable price for the helmets. 20 Under A.R.S. § 47-2305, if parties intend to be bound but fail to fix a price, an agreement 21 is enforceable, and the price is a “reasonable value at the time of delivery.” Plaintiff’s 22 theory—that the parties intended to enter into the agreement at a reasonable value for the 23 helmets—attacks the MSJ head on. (Doc. 73-1.) 24 Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s discovery requests are irrelevant because the 25 Court could resolve the MSJ by finding the Agreement unenforceable by its text. (Doc. 77 26 at 4-12.) But just because the motion could conceivably be resolved without taking further 27 1 Defendant claims that “[f]urther evidence to support [that the parties intended to enter the Agreement when it was signed] is not reasonably believed to exist.” (Doc. 77 at 28 8.) But Plaintiff need not take Defendant’s motion as discovery and is entitled to take depositions to investigate this itself. || discovery does not snuff out Plaintiff's chance to marshal a full-throated defense against all arguments raised in the MSJ, including those for which discovery is essential. In short, || Plaintiff need not contest a summary judgment motion without the discovery it is owed. 4 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Rule 56(d) motion (Doc. 73) is GRANTED. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment 6|| (Doc. 72) is DENIED without prejudice. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Defendant has not already done so, it shall 8 || comply with the Court’s order to provide discovery (Doc. 45) within ten days. 9 Dated this 22nd day of December, 2021. 10 11 12 , {Z, 13 _- Ae 14 Used States Dictrid Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-