Case 3:16-cv-30184-MGM Document 144 Filed 11/19/18 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

_________________________
)
JOHN DOE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-30184-MGM
v. )
)
WILLIAMS COLLEGE, )
)
Defendant. )
_________________________)

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR THE COURT TO ORDER

DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS UNDER RULE 56(d)
(MEMORANDUM INCORPORATED)

Plaintiff John Doe1 (“Plaintiff”), by and through counsel, hereby respectfully moves this

Court to order Defendant to produce Williams College’s 2011-2012 Student Handbook. This motion

is supported by the FRCP Rule 56(d) declaration by Plaintiff’s counsel filed herewith (“Rule 56(d)

declaration”).

Rule 56(d) provides for “limited discovery for the purpose of showing facts sufficient to

withstand a summary judgment motion,” i.e. for proving a genuine material-fact dispute. First

National Bank of Arizona v. Cities Service Company, 391 U.S. 253, 265 (1968). Under Rule 56(d), if

a nonmovant shows by 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.

1
Plaintiff refers to himself as “John Doe” throughout the pleadings.

1
 Case 3:16-cv-30184-MGM Document 144 Filed 11/19/18 Page 2 of 3

Rule 56(d) is about getting facts for a genuine material-fact dispute. A party may invoke Rule 56(d)

by stating with specificity how the additional material will rebut the summary judgment motion.

Libertarian Party of New Mexico v. Herrera, 506 F.3d 1303, 1308-1309 (10th Cir. 2007).

In the Rule 56(d) declaration, Plaintiff’s counsel identifies the additional discovery

concretely and with sufficient particularity: Williams College’s 2011-2012 Student Handbook. See

Strang v. U.S. Arms Control & Disarmament Agency, 864 F.2d 859, 861 (D.C. Cir.1989); Messina v.

Krakower, 439 F.3d 755, 762 (D.C. Cir.2006). The 2011-2012 Student Handbook contains facts

essential to justify Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s Statement of Material Facts paragraph 19 and

20. The declaration also explains how the additional material will rebut the summary judgment

motion. Without the 2011-2012 Student Handbook, Plaintiff cannot present the following in

admissible form:

At the time of the May 2012 disciplinary case, all non-academic violations of Williams’ code
of conduct were investigated and adjudicated by the Office of the Dean of the College.

and

Williams’ disciplinary procedures, published in the 2011-2012 College Student Handbook,

stated: The Office of the Dean of the College investigates alleged breaches of good conduct
and of College laws and regulations. A student charged with such a breach will be informed
by a dean of the alleged violation. Any student who is charged with an offense shall have a
reasonable opportunity to make his or her defense in a respectful manner to a dean, or to the
Faculty-Student discipline committee if the matter comes before that Committee.

The production of the 2011-2012 Student Handbook by the College would resolve the issue

of the inadmissible form of paragraphs 7 and 8 in Plaintiff’s counsel’s affidavit. Dkt. 124-7. The facts

elucidated by the currently unavailable 2011-2012 Student Handbook either undercut Defendant’s

facts by supplementation in favor of this Court granting Plaintiff partial summary judgment or create

a genuine material-fact dispute. Plaintiff identifies particular evidence likely essential for resolution

of the factual issues regarding the 2012 case presented by Defendant’s motion.

The Court has a great deal of discretion in determining whether to accept the declaration.

Given the circumstances described therein the Rule 56(d) declaration, this Court should accept the
2
 Case 3:16-cv-30184-MGM Document 144 Filed 11/19/18 Page 3 of 3

declaration and issue an order compelling Defendant to produce the College’s 2011-2012 Student

Handbook.

Certificate of Compliance with Local Rule 7.1

Counsel have conferred in good faith but without success in an effort to resolve or narrow the

issues presented in this motion.

Respectfully submitted,

Date: November 19, 2018

JOHN DOE, PLAINTIFF

By: _____/s/ Stacey Elin Rossi_______

STACEY ELIN ROSSI (BBO# 681084)
ROSSI LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 442
Hoosick Falls, New York 12090
(413)248-7622
berkshirelegal@gmail.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This document was served electronically upon all counsel of record by filing through the ECF system
on November 19, 2018.
_/s/ Stacey Elin Rossi_______
STACEY ELIN ROSSI