Evans v. Brigham Young Univ.

• Decision Date: 30 November 2021
• Docket Number: 1:20-CV-100-TS
• Parties: ROSCOE EVANS, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY, a Utah corporation, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Utah

ROSCOE EVANS, an individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY, a Utah corporation, Defendant.

No. 1:20-CV-100-TS

United States District Court, D. Utah

November 30, 2021

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S RENEWED MOTION TO STAY BRIEFING ON DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

TED STEWART UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Roscoe Evans' Renewed Motion to Stay Briefing on Defendant's Summary Judgment Motion. Plaintiff requests the Court to stay summary judgment until the parties complete merits-based discovery. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant the Motion and deny Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND

On February 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint against Brigham Young University (“BYU”) asserting claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.^[1]Plaintiff alleges that BYU failed to refund students for their Winter 2020 tuition and/or fees after it moved from in-person to online instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic.^[2]

As the case proceeded, this Court ordered, at the parties' request, a bifurcated, two-phase discovery plan: the first phase would include pre-class certification discovery and the second

1

phase would include all remaining merits-based discovery upon the Court rendering a decision on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.^[3]

The parties proceeded with pre-class certification discovery. On July 30, 2021, BYU filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on all claims due to Plaintiff's inability to establish damages and unjust enrichment.^[4] Plaintiff filed his Motion for Class Certification on August 2, 2021.^[5]

On August 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay briefing on BYU's Motion for Summary Judgment, ^[6] which the Court denied without prejudice on August 24, 2021.^[7] The parties continued with briefing on class certification and summary judgment.

On September 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed a renewed Motion to Stay briefing on BYU's Motion for Summary Judgment claiming he needs additional time to complete merits-based and damages discovery in order to adequately respond.^[8]

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“[S]ummary judgment [should] be refused where the nonmoving party has not had the opportunity to discover information that is essential to [its] opposition.”^[9] Rule 56(d) states “[i]f a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition [to a motion for summary judgment] the court may: defer considering the motion or deny it; allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take

2

discovery; or issue any other appropriate order.”^[10] “The affidavit need not contain evidentiary facts, [but] it must explain why facts precluding summary judgment cannot be presented.”^[11]

In the Tenth Circuit, the nonmovant seeking Rule 56(d) relief must satisfy four requirements: (1) identify the probable facts not available; (2) explain why those facts cannot be currently presented; (3) describe what steps have been taken to obtain such facts; and (4) demonstrate how additional time will enable the party to obtain those facts and rebut the motion for summary judgment.^[12] “Unless dilatory or lacking merit, the motion should be liberally treated.”^[13]

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff...