Reichert v. Hornbeck

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
JEFFREY W. REICHERT, 	*
Plaintiff, 	*
v. 	* 	Civil Case No: 1:24-cv-01865-JMC
SARAH HORNBECK,
*
Defendant.
* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	*
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff initiated the above-captioned malicious prosecution case against Defendant on
June 26, 2024. 	(ECF No. 1). 	Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion Pursuant to Rule
56(d) (the “Motion”) (ECF No. 83), as it relates to the pending Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 75). The Motion is fully briefed (ECF Nos. 83, 84) and no hearing is necessary. See Loc.
R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2025). For the reasons set forth immediately below, Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF NO.
83) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
I. 	BACKGROUND
The instant malicious prosecution litigation is one of many claims arising from the parties’
circuit court divorce and child custody proceedings. 	On January 11, 2026, Defendant filed a
motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 74). Attached thereto is Defendant’s five-page affidavit.
(ECF No. 75-1). 	Thereafter, the parties filed two status reports regarding a scheduling dispute
related to Defendant’s deposition. 	(ECF Nos. 78, 79). The Court directed the parties to confer
regarding dates during the week of February 8, 2026 (ECF No. 81), which resulted in a standstill.
Plaintiff asks the Court to either deny or defer ruling on Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment until Plaintiff has taken Defendant’s deposition under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). (ECF No.
83). In response, Defendant elaborates upon the recent scheduling challenges and further requests
Case 1:24-cv-01865-JMC Document 85 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 4

2
that instead, the Court grant an extension of time for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s motion
for summary judgment to fourteen days after February 27, 2026, when she is available to be
deposed, an order that her deposition shall be remote, and a limitation of scope due to a concern
that the deposition will relate to the many other claims Plaintiff has brought against her rather than
to the present litigation. (ECF No. 82).
II. 	ANALYSIS
Rule 56(d) provides that “[i]f a nonmovant shows by affidavit or 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). Thus, a 56(d) motion
must be granted “where the nonmoving party has not had the opportunity to discover information
that is essential to his opposition.” 	Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214,
244 (4th Cir.2002); McCray v. Maryland Dept. of Transp., 741 F.3d 480, 483-84 (4th Cir. 2014).
As Plaintiff points out, granting 56(d) motions are “broadly favored and should be liberally
granted” 	in 	order 	to 	protect 	non-moving 	parties 	from 	premature 	summary 	judgment
motions. Greater Balt. Ctr. for Pregnancy Concerns, Inc. v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 721
F.3d 264, 281 (4th Cir.2013) (quoting Raby v. Livingston, 600 F.3d 552, 561 (5th Cir.2010)).
Plaintiff explains in his 56(d) affidavit that a deposition is necessary to allow his summary
judgment response as it will relate to (1) the truth and completeness of Defendant’s statements, (2)
probable cause, or the lack thereof, (3) malice and improper motive, and (4) credibility. (ECF No.
81-1). Considering the parties’ positions and the long history of a contentious litigation, the Court
agrees that Plaintiff has not had opportunity to discovery such stated reasons and should have time
to take Defendant’s deposition. McCray, 741 F.3d at 483-84. It is also well-taken that the scope
Case 1:24-cv-01865-JMC Document 85 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 4

3
of the present claim is quite narrow, as evidenced by Plaintiff’s stated reasons set forth in his 56(d)
affidavit and Defendant’s five-page affidavit. Moreover, the Court understands the concern that a
seven-hour deposition in this narrow case could result in questioning that relates to the other six
active litigations, all of which have arisen from the same circuit court family law matter. Thus,
under Rule 30(d)(1), the Court finds good cause to permit a five-hour, remote deposition, which
will fairly provide the time needed to depose Defendant for the purposes set forth in Plaintiff’s
Rule 56(d) affidavit.1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1).
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
(1) 	Defendant shall appear over Zoom or a similar virtual platform for a deposition on
one of the following three dates: February 17, 2026, February 20, 2026, or February
27, 2026;
(2) 	Plaintiff shall be entitled to five (5) hours of deposition time;
(3) 	The deposition shall be limited in scope to the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s 56(d)
affidavit (ECF No. 81-1) and Defendant’s 5-page affidavit;
(4) 	To the extent an issue arises as to whether a question is within that scope, the parties
should place their respective arguments on the record rather than by contacting the
Court during the deposition;
(5) 	Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition shall be due thirty (30) days from the date of the
deposition to ensure adequate time to obtain the deposition transcript and prepare a
responsive brief;
(6) 	Defendant’s Reply, if any, shall be due fourteen (14) days thereafter; and
1 Notably, Plaintiff himself has been asked to be excused from in-person discovery and hearings prior to trial, a
request the Court granted previously. (ECF No. 77).
Case 1:24-cv-01865-JMC Document 85 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 4

4
(7) 	Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED such that the Court shall defer ruling on the
pending motion for summary judgment based on the briefing schedule specified
above.
(8) 	The parties are further reminded of their obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(2)
and 30(d)(3).
(9) 	Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 83) is otherwise DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 10, 2026 	_______________________
J. Mark Coulson
United States Magistrate Judge
/s/
Case 1:24-cv-01865-JMC Document 85 Filed 02/10/26 Page 4 of 4