Background
Property owners brought this rails-to-trails case alleging a taking of land beneath a railroad corridor. The government moved for summary judgment, arguing in part that the plaintiffs had not produced chain-of-title evidence establishing a compensable property interest.
The plaintiffs sought a 44-day extension to obtain full chains of title and to file their cross-motion for partial summary judgment and opposition. They asserted that the government first raised the chain-of-title issue in its summary-judgment motion, that Utah law did not require such evidence, and that obtaining the records would take 30 to 35 days. The government responded that the title work should have been completed before suit or before discovery closed.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the extension under Rule 56(d) of the Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. It found that the plaintiffs identified the specific evidence sought, showed that the evidence could illuminate the ownership of the land beneath the right of way, and adequately explained why they had not obtained it sooner. Although the plaintiffs had not initially invoked Rule 56(d) expressly or supplied the required declaration, they cured those procedural deficiencies by attaching a declaration to their reply.
The court also found no prejudice to the government. The 44-day extension would not disturb other case-management deadlines or delay a trial because none had been scheduled, and the government could request additional response time if necessary. Emphasizing the preference for resolving cases on their merits, the court ordered the plaintiffs to file their cross-motion and opposition by November 27, 2026. It reserved judgment on whether Utah’s centerline presumption ultimately made chain-of-title evidence legally necessary.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 56(d) relief is generally favored when a party needs specific evidence essential to opposing summary judgment.
- A procedural defect in a Rule 56(d) request may be cured through a supporting declaration filed with a reply.
- The court did not decide whether Utah law requires full chain-of-title proof or whether the plaintiffs possess compensable property interests.
Why It Matters
The ruling gives the property owners an opportunity to develop ownership evidence before the court addresses the government’s failure-of-proof argument. It underscores that courts may permit focused additional discovery when a summary-judgment argument raises an evidentiary issue that the opposing party lacked a fair opportunity to address.
The order is procedural rather than a decision on liability or the merits of the alleged taking. Questions concerning ownership, Utah’s centerline presumption, and whether a compensable taking occurred remain unresolved.