Opinion ID: 6113
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Discretion and Continuance for Further Discovery

Text: 20 A district court's denial of a request for continuance pursuant to Rule 56(f) is reviewed only for an abuse of discretion. 19 Moreover, the request need not be granted when the party opposing the motion simply rel[ies] on vague assertions that additional discovery will produce needed, but unspecified facts, 20 particularly when ample time and opportunities for discovery have already lapsed. 21 21 Recile failed to identify to the district court what specific facts he was going to uncover or develop with additional discovery. Indeed, Recile failed, much like he has done on appeal, even to identify the specific issues that the additional discovery would have addressed. Furthermore, Recile had been involved in discovery for fifteen months before the hearing on the summary judgment motion--discovery that focused on facts regarding his mental state that were within his easy grasp. 22 We conclude that under these circumstances that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Recile's motion for a continuance for a shorter period than he requested. III