It necessarily follows that the information upon which defendants sought discovery could not have produced facts that would have precluded summary judgment. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant defendants request for discovery. Furthermore, even if we assume, without deciding, that the requested discovery would have disclosed that Keybank had unclean hands, that issue was not relevant to a determination of the ultimate issue of who owned the vehicles. For the same reasons, we reject defendants contention that the trial court s action deprived them of their due process rights to litigate the issues presented. C. Defendants also contend that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because, even without the requested discovery, the record discloses that there was a genuine issue of material fact.
Defendants point to an affidavit of a detective who investigated the dealer s fraudulent scheme.
The affidavit was executed for the purpose of obtaining an arrest warrant for the dealer and set forth the factual basis for criminal charges of theft arising out of the various transactions. Furthermore, the supplemental affidavit of counsel attaching the criminal information, findings and acceptance of guilty plea, and judgment of conviction and sentence concerning the used-car dealer likewise is not material to the determination of the issue in this case. Therefore, it was not material. Defendants assert the trial court improperly engaged in fact finding on the issue of relative responsibilities of the parties. We conclude that any error was harmless.