Summary Judgment — Failure to Diligently Pursue Discovery in the Past Is a Reason to Deny Further Discovery — Noncompliance with Rule 56(d) Also Warrants Denial of Request for Further Discovery
Long v. Playboy Enters. Int’l, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5483 (9th Cir. Mar. 25, 2014):
Nor did the district court err in rejecting Long's request for further discovery in order to authenticate screenshots from web sites showing discriminatory pricing for the party. Long had several months to conduct further discovery between the submission of PEII's motion for summary judgment and hearing in which additional time was requested. Failing to diligently pursue discovery in the past is sufficient reason to deny further discovery. See Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 113 F.3d 912, 921 (9th Cir. 1997). Long also failed to submit an affidavit in support of his request, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). Noncompliance with the terms of Rule 56(d) "provides an adequate ground for us to affirm the district court's denial." State of Cal., ex rel Cal. Dep't of Toxic Substances Control v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998).
Share this article: