Clinton Harris v. Sai Nashville Motors, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

CLINTON HARRIS, Plaintiff, Case No. 3:24-cv-00791 v. Judge Aleta A. Trauger SAI NASHVILLE MOTORS, LLC, Magistrate Judge Luke A. Evans Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER On November 12, 2025, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 95.)

In his opposition to the motion, plaintiff invoked Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to assert that he needed certain discovery issues resolved before he had the facts that he needed to oppose the motion in full. (Doc. No. 100.)

“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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). Here, recent rulings from the Court (Doc. Nos. 128, 133) have addressed the discovery issues that plaintiff identified. When fact discovery closes after September 23, 2026 (Doc. No. 117), both defendant’s motion and plaintiff’s opposition will have to be updated to reflect recently gathered discovery. See Ball v. Union Carbide Corp., 385 F.3d 713, 719 (6th Cir. 2004) (plaintiff must receive a full opportunity to conduct discovery to be able to oppose a motion for summary judgment) (citations omitted). A new set of motion papers and opposition papers—currently due on or before November 9, 2026 (Doc. No. 117)—will be the best way to ensure proper review under Rule 56(c).

Accordingly, the Court DENIES! the pending motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 95) but WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewal after the close of discovery.

It is so ORDERED. oY _ fo Mee a a □□ “ne LUKE A. EVANS United States Magistrate Judge The Court has concluded that a non-dispositive resolution to the motion is appropriate, given the denial without prejudice. Under the circumstances here, because the “penalty to be imposed, rather than the penalty sought by the movant” controls magistrate judge authority, Gomez v. Martin Marietta Corp., 50 F.3d 1511, 1519 (10th Cir. 1995), the Court is proceeding by order rather than by report and recommendation. Cf Fowler v. Tenth Planet, Inc., 673 F. Supp. 3d 763, (D. Md. 2023) (standard of review for Rule 37 dismissal sanction “is governed by the result the Magistrate Judge determines”) (citations omitted); Edwards v. DeBord, No. 7:18-CV-00423, 2021 WL 5827324, at *3 (W.D. Va. Dec. 8, 2021) (same) (citations omitted).