Ordonez, etc. v. Capitol Farmers Market, Inc., [Ms. SC-2024-0424, Apr. 25, 2025] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2025). The Court (Bryan, J.; Stewart, C.J., and Shaw, Mendheim, and Cook, JJ., concur) reverses the Montgomery Circuit Court’s summary judgment dismissing claims against Defendant Capitol Farmers Market, Inc. (“CFMI”) arising from burns received by a minor from hot soup at a grocery store deli.
CFMI moved for summary judgment contending that it did not own or operate the grocery store, and did not employ workers at the store. CFMI’s motion was supported by an affidavit from its owner, John Yim. In response, Plaintiff moved for continuance under Rule 56(f) to depose Yim.
The Court reiterates that the “mere pendency of discovery does not bar the entry of a summary judgment.” Ms. *14 (internal citations omitted). Instead, the burden is on the party opposing summary judgment to show, through an affidavit, that the discovery requested in a Rule 56(f) motion “has been diligently pursued and that the information sought is crucial to the nonmovant’s opposition to summary judgment.” Ms. *14 (internal citations omitted).
In reversing, the Court finds that Plaintiff had diligently pursued discovery by asking to depose Yim before Defendant moved for summary judgment, Ms. *16, and that the record showed that Yim’s deposition was crucial to Plaintiff’s response opposing summary judgment. Ms. **16-20.