Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03378/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03378-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Teresa Beatty
Appellant
Synthes (USA)
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3378

___________

Teresa Beatty, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Synthes (USA), *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 26, 2004

Filed: June 28, 2004

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Teresa Beatty (Beatty) appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in her diversity products-liability action. Beatty’s sole argument on appeal

is that the district court erred in denying her Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f)

request to hold the summary judgment motion in abeyance pending further discovery.

After careful review of the record, we discern no gross abuse of discretion. See Duffy

v. Wolle, 123 F.3d 1026, 1040 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of review), cert. denied, 523

U.S. 1137 (1998). 

Appellate Case: 03-3378 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2004 Entry ID: 1781743 
-2-

Specifically, Beatty’s affidavit was insufficient because it did not identify any

material facts discovery might unveil. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) (party must state by

affidavit why it cannot present by affidavit facts essential to justify opposition to

summary judgment); Stanback v. Best Diversified Prods., Inc., 180 F.3d 903, 911 (8th

Cir. 1999) (Rule 56(f) requires filing of affidavit “showing ‘what specific facts

further discovery might unveil’”). In addition, Beatty sought further discovery over

one year after the case was removed to federal court, and two discovery deadlines had

passed. Although Synthes (USA) contributed to the delay, the record does not show

that Beatty vigilantly sought to prepare her case in a timely manner. Cf. AyalaGerena v. Bristol Myers-Squibb Co., 95 F.3d 86, 92 (1st Cir. 1996) (“Rule 56(f) is

designed to minister to the vigilant, not to those who slumber upon perceptible rights”

(citation omitted)).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3378 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/28/2004 Entry ID: 1781743