UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1911

CRISTINA RADI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary, United States Department of 

Health and Human Services,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:09-

cv-02089-RWT)

ARGUED: May 10, 2011 Decided: June 3, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Alan Lescht, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Neil R. 

White, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, 

for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Rod J. Rosenstein, United States 

Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Cristina Radi, a federal employee, appeals from the 

district court’s order denying her motion for additional discovery 

under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We affirm.

I.

Radi, who is Vietnamese, worked in the Department of 

Health and Human Services as an information technology specialist. 

Radi filed an internal EEO complaint in February 2009, asserting a 

race- and national-origin-based hostile-environment claim and a 

retaliation claim, and she commenced this action in federal 

district court in August 2009. On February 5, 2010, the 

government filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the case or, 

alternatively, to grant summary judgment. Radi responded to that 

motion on February 14, 2010, supporting her response with her own 

9-page affidavit. Radi did not argue in her response that she was 

unable to present the facts needed to oppose summary judgment or 

otherwise suggest that formal discovery was necessary for her to 

properly respond to the summary judgment motion. Instead, Radi 

argued that the evidence before the court was sufficient to defeat 

the government’s motion for summary judgment.

In May 2010, Radi, through her new attorney, filed an 

amended complaint. On May 26, 2010, counsel filed an affidavit, 

see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) (2009), seeking discovery in order to 
3

respond to the government’s summary judgment motion. The district 

court concluded that Radi’s Rule 56(f) affidavit came too late and 

failed to describe with particularity the evidence that Radi 

sought to discover or explain why Radi had been unable to obtain 

the necessary evidence. The court therefore denied Radi’s motion 

for discovery and proceeded to grant summary judgment in favor of 

the government. Radi appeals, challenging only the district 

court’s denial of her Rule 56(f) request.

II.

At the time of the district court’s ruling,* Rule 56(f) 

provided that “[i]f a party opposing the [summary judgment] motion 

shows by affidavit that, for specified reasons, it cannot present 

facts essential to justify its opposition,” the district court 

could deny summary judgment or order a continuance to permit the 

opposing party time to conduct discovery or obtain affidavits. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) (2009). A Rule 56(f) affidavit that 

conclusorily states that discovery is required is insufficient; 

the affidavit must specify the reasons the party is unable to 

present the necessary facts and describe with particularity the 

evidence that the party seeks to obtain. See Trask v. Franco

 * Rule 56 was amended effective December 1, 2010; the 

amendments moved (without making material change) the substance of 

subsection (f) to subsection (d). 

, 446 
4

F.3d 1036, 1042 (10th Cir. 2006) (“A party seeking to defer a 

ruling on summary judgment under Rule 56(f) must file an affidavit 

that explains why facts precluding summary judgment cannot be 

presented. This includes identifying the probable facts not 

available and what steps have been taken to obtain these facts.” 

(internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)); Pine Ridge 

Coal Co. v. Local 8377, 187 F.3d 415, 421 (4th Cir. 1999) (“Rule 

56(f) . . . allows a party to seek additional time to obtain 

evidence as long as he can present an affidavit putting forth the 

reasons why he is unable to present the necessary opposing 

material.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Nguyen v. CNA 

Corp.

In the affidavit seeking discovery, counsel for Radi 

stated that discovery was required to determine whether there were 

similarly situated employees outside Radi’s protected class who 

were treated more favorably than she was; to obtain evidence 

corroborating Radi’s claim of a causal connection between her 

termination and her prior protected activity; and to obtain 

evidence of pretext. Notwithstanding Radi’s access to the 

administrative record -- a record that included numerous documents 

and affidavits produced in the course of the agency’s 

investigation of Radi’s complaint, Radi’s Rule 56(f) affidavit did 

, 44 F.3d 234, 242 (4th Cir. 1995) (explaining that a Rule 

56(f) affidavit must “particularly specif[y] legitimate needs for 

further discovery”).
5

not name any witnesses to be deposed or otherwise identify with 

any specificity the hoped-for evidence, nor did the affidavit 

explain why Radi had been unable to obtain affidavits addressing 

the perceived deficiencies in her proof.

While we do not suggest that the existence of an 

administrative investigation and record automatically precludes 

the need for discovery, the administrative record at the very 

least should have enabled Radi to produce an affidavit 

sufficiently detailed to meet the requirements of Rule 56(f). 

Under these circumstances, we simply cannot conclude that the 

district court abused its discretion by denying Radi’s Rule 56(f) 

motion. See Nader v. Blair, 549 F.3d 953, 958-59 (4th Cir. 2008) 

(explaining that the denial of a Rule 56(f) motion is reviewed for 

abuse of discretion); Cardinal v. Metrish, 564 F.3d 794, 797-98 

(6th Cir. 2009) (“If the plaintiff makes only general and 

conclusory statements in his affidavit regarding the needed 

discovery, lacks any details or specificity, it is not an abuse of 

discretion for the district court to deny the request.”), cert. 

denied

Accordingly, we hereby affirm the district court’s 

denial of Radi’s motion for discovery under Rule 56(f).

, 78 U.S.L.W. 3065 (2011).

AFFIRMED