![]() ![]() ![]() The district court denied Forbis’s Rule 56(d) motion because: (1) “several of the newly raised requests for discovery (e-mail exchange with Mr. Twenty-one days after Exeter filed its motion for summary judgment, Forbis filed his Rule 56(d) motion, wherein he sought: “(1) all email communications between Brad Nall and Plaintiff from Januto December 31, 2019,2 and (2) the work performed by Barbara Zajac from Mato January 27,2020, stored on Defendant’s Treasury drive under the folder entitled ‘Barb,’”3 which Forbis narrowed to one “necessary” Excel file. “‘A trial court enjoys wide discretion in determining the scope and effect of discovery,’ and it is therefore ‘unusual to find an abuse of discretion in discovery matters.’” JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. 2019) (quoting In re High Sulfur Content Gasoline Prod. 22-10193 discretion, the district court’s decision must be either premised on an erroneous application of the law, or on an assessment of the evidence that is clearly erroneous.’” Torres v. “‘To constitute an abuse of 1 Neither Bradley nor Miller recall the prayer incident at lunch. The Rule 56(d) Motion We review a district court’s denial of a Rule 56(d) motion for abuse of discretion. The district court denied the motion for additional discovery and granted the motion for summary judgment. Afterward, Forbis moved under Rule 56(d) for additional discovery. Exeter moved for summary judgment on all claims. On January 27, 2020, Exeter terminated Forbis. You people kill me thinking there is a God.” 1 Forbis contends that the “you people” comment “was directed at was the only Black person at the table.” Forbis alleges that it was only after he lodged this complaint that he received negative performance reviews. That there is some puppeteer in the sky pulling all the strings. You mean to tell me that you believe in God. ![]() In his affidavit, Forbis described that as lunch was served, he “quietly sa grace to self,” during which Miller allegedly stated: “Lets all stop so that George can say his prayer. His complaint stemmed from a lunch he attended with Ben Miller – Bradley’s supervisor – and other unidentified employees. In October of 2019, Forbis complained to Exeter’s human resources department about racial and religious discrimination. ![]() According to his supervisor, Brett Bradley, his job performance was satisfactory until 2019. Forbis worked as a senior treasury analyst for Exeter from March of 2015 until his termination in January of 2020. * This opinion is not designated for publication. Per Curiam:* Appellant George Forbis appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for additional discovery under Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court’s summary-judgment dismissal of his Title VII claims for retaliation and disparate treatment in favor of appellee Exeter Finance, L.L.C. 3:20-cv-2007-C Before Graves, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. Forbis, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus Exeter Finance, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellee. Case: 22-10193 Document: 00516592482 Page: 1 Date Filed: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |