That court upheld the denial of additional time for discovery on two grounds. First, plaintiffs failed to identify any useful facts that they believed would be discovered in the deposition of Mr. Woodbury. Approximately five months after plaintiffs filed the instant action in the district court, Woodbury moved for a protective order to cut off any discovery by plaintiffs. At that time, plaintiffs had not yet conducted any discovery in this action. The trial court granted Woodbury's motion for a protective order, reasoning that plaintiffs had expended their time for discovery while their case was pending before the federal district court and that they were not entitled to additional time for discovery because the state district court was bound by collateral estoppel.
Plaintiffs now assign as error the granting of the protective order.
They argue that without the desired discovery, they were unable to pursue basic factual issues and were prevented from obtaining basic information to oppose the motions for summary judgment in this case, particularly as they relate to the unjust enrichment of Woodbury Corporation and Vestwood and the negligence of Newton. We find no error. We need not and do not determine whether the trial court was bound by the doctrine of collateral estoppel to follow the federal court in denying further discovery. Plaintiffs' sole claim against Woodbury and Vestwood is for unjust enrichment. As a matter of law, that claim cannot succeed.