2d 1207
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
at Baltimore. Joseph C. Howard, District Judge; Catherine C. Blake,
Magistrate Judge. (CA-90-783-JH).
Michael John Pangia, Gilman, Olson & Pangia, Washington, D.C., for
appellant.
Richard Charles Kay, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Md.
(Argued), for appellee; Breckinridge L. Willcox, United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Md., on brief.
D.Md.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit
Judges.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Marcel L. Bernard appeals from an order of the district court granting summary
judgment in favor of the government and assessing civil penalties against
Bernard pursuant to 49 U.S.C.A. 1471(a)(1) (West 1976) for violations of
Federal Aviation Administration regulations. These regulations require that a
pilot be familiar with preflight information concerning aircraft performance, 14
C.F.R. 91.5 (1985), require that 30 minutes of fuel reserves remain on board
an aircraft upon landing, 14 C.F.R. 91.22 (1985), and prohibit operation of an
aircraft in a careless or reckless manner, 14 C.F.R. 91.9 (1985). Concluding
that Bernard was not afforded an adequate opportunity for discovery prior to
summary judgment, we reverse and remand.
I.
2
On July 6, 1985, I preflighted [the aircraft] at 5:15 p.m. and visually checked
fuel and assumed about ten gallons of gas was in the tanks. We then departed
Suburban Airport about 5:30 p.m.
The government instituted this action four years and nine months later * by
filing a complaint on March 14, 1990.
On October 4, 1990 the government filed a motion for enlargement of time for
discovery because depositions of Bernard and the FAA investigator could not
be scheduled and completed prior to November 13, 1990. Defense counsel
concurred in the motion. The district court ruled that a decision on the summary
judgment motion would be issued promptly after the government filed a reply
to Bernard's supplemental opposition to summary judgment and that further
discovery would be permitted if the motion for summary judgment were
denied. The reply was filed on October 11, and on October 18, 1990 the court
issued an order granting summary judgment in favor of the government.
Although the government had sought an assessment of civil penalties totalling
$3,000, the court imposed a penalty of $500 based upon a determination that a
five-year delay by the government in instituting the action warranted mitigation
of sanctions. As a result of the grant of summary judgment prior to the date the
depositions were scheduled, neither Bernard nor the FAA investigator were
deposed.
II.
8
Summary judgment may be granted only upon an adequate record after the nonmoving party has been afforded an opportunity for discovery necessary to
develop facts essential to opposition of the motion. See Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 n. 5 (1986). A refusal of a district court to
permit further discovery prior to an entry of summary judgment is reviewed for
an abuse of discretion. Beneficial Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Madariaga, 851
F.2d 271, 277 (9th Cir.1988). We conclude that on the specific facts of this
case the district court abused its discretion in granting summary judgment
without allowing sufficient opportunity for discovery. The dilatory response by
the government to Bernard's legitimate discovery requests coupled with a grant
of summary judgment prior to the date on which depositions could be
completed resulted in Bernard's inability to conduct even minimal discovery
necessary to oppose the motion. In view of our holding, we need not address
our concerns of whether Bernard's speculative post-accident statement, the sole
evidence presented by the government, provides proof of a violation of these
regulations and what effect policy considerations underlying an open exchange
of information between pilots and FAA investigators may have on the use of
this statement in these proceedings.
10
For the foregoing reasons, the grant of summary judgment and assessment of
civil penalties is reversed and this matter is remanded for proceedings not
inconsistent with this opinion.
11