almost as a matter of course unless the moving party has not diligently pursued discovery of the evidence this is the holding or at least one of the holdings in the case of  justice next an employer if an employer offers a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason then the plaintive must be afforded a fair opportunity to show that the employer stated reason it is i don't want to say if it's on a road map but it does provide yeah i wanted it and it and it and it says there is three the affidavit must accomplish three things right it must first of all outline particularly facts he intends to discover and why those are needed we're in your affidavit because it outlined the particular facts that mr haynes needs your honor to discover and why he needs those i didn't see that your honor what we stated in our the in our affidavit is mr haynes needed to discover the information on how  this reorganization was conducted he requested electronic messages in between the people who were involved in the decision making process so that should that should cover that particular request if you tell it i mean now that is if the affidavit describes categories of information but it doesn't identify particular in facts intended discovered why those need you contrasted to that to the affidavit that was used in the and there's a vast difference between the two your honor we will let you so that's my concern is that that the that the affidavit here is just it's not it's not sufficient it's just says again identifies categories of information that could possibly be relevant but it doesn't it doesn't have the level of specificity your honor required by by conference you know your honor we believe that convert basically the first step in the process is you're entitled to discovery if it's if it's obvious if the discovery is needed to respond to legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons and this court incumbent you know as well as the schapelle be denied unless there is some reason for a delay and i'm with you that i'm with you on that thank you we start with the idea that you're going to get discovery but then again convertino gives us a roadmap for what the affidavit looks like and that's that's my concern and i agree there if you're assuming that a reasonable basis for stop you your honor we believe based on to be the facts in schapelle johnson as well as the conference we know mr haines easily thousand facts supporting his claim is that my position was like i work here twenty seven years my position was selected to at these additional licensing requirements and i was given six months to agency had a practice she elisa layers at the agency had a practice that when caucasian employees than might did not meet the requirements for the position that the agency would lower the grade of the position so that caucasian employees would qualify hayes makes the same type of argument same type of allegation caucasian and the agency has a practice of permitting caucasian employees a longer period of time to get whatever necessary licenses are required if there was a reorganization and here he said these employees his position would normally his license would normally require about four years to pay he was given six months caucasian employees were given eighteen months to two years to get a license to outline of the particular facts he intends to discover and why these yet to be discovered facts are necessary that's exactly my point can you tell me in what way was the district court of abused her discretion in an ruling ruling that the that that missing from the declaration was an outline of the particular facts and why these are necessary your honor what we said is tell us exactly how you arrived at this conclusion and that's what our and i need this information to respond to the motion for summary judgment no that's not what we say we think then then you identify eleven categories of information but i don't i don't see where you provide an outline of the facts you intended skiver and why they are necessary for you your honor so once again i think the first step is if the discovery a severed seven hit this is the court's court noted this in the or coffee case then no direct it he seems to be convertino tells us what we're supposed to do it's almost a check the box sort of thing you need to have an affidavit but that shows the facts you and that you need to discover just like was done in the coverage you know and it's and why you need them your honor i don't think that's have to do x y and z and this has to be included in the declaration the facts differ from case to case the courts have made made that clear and if there is if you're saying start the process  telling me exactly what happened here with that how michael how mr haynes was selected to be terminated and required to know i'm just looking for an outline of the facts you intend to discover and why these are necessary for your own right we believe that we've included that in the affidavit and that information has that in from that we've been permitted to conduct discovery on that information it would have told us we would have learned for example if someone sent an e mail saying you know we want to get rid of the older african american employees better or employees who can't you know have difficulty reading or as mr haines so we believe that we satisfy the requirements of didn't have to go through the mcdonnell douglas analysis to reach this conclusion your honor i'd like to reserve at least a minute here i would like to just address a couple of the questions that judge griffith posed to mr branch regarding the content of the declaration that was submitted in support of the request for all fifty sixty discovery discover advise as to your prior efforts before filing the motion to gather this information and also provide information as to whether it i and this particular case and under convertino you do as mr brand said have to look at it on a case by case basis and in this particular case mr branch submitted a declaration in support fifty sixty relating to his claim to mr haynes claim under section one nine hundred eighty one for race discrimination that is the starting point for determining whether or not any additional discover necessary in this particular case the water presented are legitimate business reason for why mr haines was terminated he was terminated because there was a his original position of electrical equipment repair it was replaced by a journeyman electrician position when when when when you come home the complaint with the fifty six d ex affidavit is there any serious doubt what what mr grant was looking after aren't we perhaps of abating form over substance with your reading of conference you know i don't believe so because the water in this particular case unlike in chapel johnson which the opponent relies on went beyond just proffering a legitimate business reason they also provided additional evidence including about one hundred over hundred and twenty pages of documentation that show not only how the reorganization with implemented but also it's a fact there is evidence in the records that show originally there were seven electrical equipment repair not every case that's filed warrants spending time going through discovery because there maybe it's the fission evidence readily available to both parties so that they a motion for summary judgment can be granted early and in the case and in this particular situation d c water proffered evidence that went to their legitimate business reason and also as to whether or not in fact it disqualify african americans from working in the new journeyman electrician position we started off with seven incumbents the new licensing requirement was imposed immediately to african americans qualified to continue in the position the other five individuals were provided training by d c water this is all in the record at the completion of the initial period of training one african american and one caucasian employee there were his conference you know he's asking something more limited isn't likely that it actually provides an outline for the declaration if claim to believe that they need additional discovery in the case it also provides an outline or informs the court as to whether it seems to me you're saying he didn't need additional discovery because he really doesn't have a case because the case that the district brought forward is so compelling but that's not the inquiry here is the lower his whether whether he can show that that there's there's information he needs to support his case that he doesn't he hasn't yet had access my position is not that there's no need for discovery but there he does have to make an effort before filing the real fifty sixty to gather information to prove that they proffer legitimate business reason is pretax and in this particular case but with what was in the record with the fact that african americans were not excluded from this position it was then the burden was on appellant to outline in the fifty sixty declaration the specific categories of areas he needed to explore in order to prove that it pretextual in point six he asked for all documents in electronic communications reflecting context with the division regarding electrician's duties that's that's prodder than just his department right i'm not quite sure what appellant intended by that category in my interpretation would be there were these really only electricians impacted by this reorganization so it would be just limited to the department that were not  in other departments that the water authority there may have been but the electricians that were impacted by the reorganization were just well that's what he wants to know that's what i mean that's what he wants to know was this broader than just his department he needs to be we all in the record demonstrated that this particular reorganization impacted a particular group of employees there's no evidence that wants like i doubt if it impacted more why should he be allowed to take discovery to the see if that's the case mr mr haynes who worked for d c water for twenty seven years because in the position to provide information to his council as to whether or not there were electricians outside of his stock department who likewise were required to have this new license there and therefore that would have been specified in the declaration as an area they would want to explore so you say and he would have enough information to know who the victims of discrimination were he would have enough information to know whether or not there were other electricians at the seawater and then the next question would be what efforts were made to identify who those electricians were and why was appellant able to gather that information different position from the equipment were nonviolent and i mean i'm just looking at the essential functions list on page one hundred one and it does not seem to mention  the evidence in the record is the testimony from a supervisor who is responsible for the utility systems operator states that they were not electricians they did not provide or perform those types of responsibilities and there also is in the record the memorandum of understanding understanding of memory and of agreement between the union and the seawater regarding the reorganization and the need for the certifications for certain positions and it clearly differentiates between the utility systems operators and the electric electrical equipment operator repairs did electrical work with what he was doing you or your honor he does not present evidence of that but one of the issues in the case and this is mr haynes we've mentioned this mr haynes has difficulty district court should invoke this rule that's true fifty six have now fifty sixty generously holding parties to this spirit rather than to the letter of the law and that did not happen here in fact the argument made by opposing counsel it seems to support that position they had this base they're basically saying the defendant has the right they hold all the evidence we can assert a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason and if you can't respond to it you know some cases just should not go forward let's just fundamentally unfair to declaration from counsel we were essentially saying we have these allegations in the complaint and this is what we need to prove the allegations in the complaint we need to know how you arrived at this decision we need to know i think it's that you know specif