The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8 RAYMOND DE BOTTON,
CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00223-RSL
9 Plaintiff,
v.
10
11 QUALITY LOAN SERVICES ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO CONTINUE
CORPORATION OF WASHINGTON, et
12 al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion for Relief Pursuant to
16
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d).” Dkt. # 24. Under that Rule:
17
18 a trial court may order a continuance on a motion for summary judgment if
the party requesting a continuance submits affidavits showing that, without
19
Rule 56 assistance, it cannot present facts necessary to justify its claims. The
20 requesting party must show: (1) it has set forth in affidavit form the specific
21 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. Cal. on
22
behalf of Cal. Dep't of Toxic Substances Control v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772,
23 779 (9th Cir. 1998). Failure to comply with these requirements “is a proper
ground for denying discovery and proceeding to summary judgment.” Id.
24
(quoting Brae Transp., Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, 790 F.2d 1439, 1443 (9th
25 Cir. 1986)).
26
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
1
2
Fam. Home & Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 525 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir.
3
2008). Plaintiff has provided an affidavit showing that, prior to the filing of the motion for
4
5 summary judgment, plaintiff served notices of deposition seeking testimony regarding the
6 existence of the underlying loan, the alleged default, how the foreclosure proceeds were
7
distributed, whether the trustee was qualified to act, whether the trustee complied with its
8
statutory obligations, the existence of an attorney-client relationship between defendants,
9
10 and Quality Loan Services Corporation’s relationship with various third parties. Dkt. # 24-
11 1 at 14-23. Most of these facts are clearly at issue in the pending summary judgment
12
motion, and defendants selected documents and information in their possession to their
13
narrative. Plaintiff, however, has not had the opportunity to inquire whether other, less
14
15 supportive documents exist and/or to test defendants’ assertions regarding statutory
16 compliance and immunities.
17
18
For all of the foregoing reasons, the motion to continue is GRANTED. The parties
19
have served their initial disclosures, and defendants produced documents on March 16,
20
21 2023, in support of their pending motion for summary judgment. The parties shall schedule
22
the noticed depositions within the next two weeks (if they have not already occurred).
23
Plaintiff will then be given an opportunity to serve follow-up discovery before his response
24
to the pending motion is due.
25
26
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
1 The Clerk of Court is directed to renote Defendants’ Amended Motion for
2
Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 17) for consideration on July 21, 2023.
3
4
Dated this 26th day of April, 2023.
5
6
7 Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO