Opinion ID: 3051928
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) Request

Text: [10] Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), a trial court may order a continuance on a motion for summary judgment if the party requesting a continuance submits affidavits showing that, without Rule 56 assistance, it cannot present facts necessary to justify its claims. The requesting party must show: (1) it FAMILY HOME v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN 5039 has set forth in affidavit form the specific facts it hopes to elicit from further discovery; (2) the facts sought exist; and (3) the sought-after facts are essential to oppose summary judgment. Cal. on behalf of Cal. Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998). Failure to comply with these requirements “is a proper ground for denying discovery and proceeding to summary judgment.” Id. (quoting Brae Transp., Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, 790 F.2d 1439, 1443 (9th Cir. 1986)). [11] Park Place sought evidence of the criteria used to place entities on the Exclusionary List, as well as the entities placed on the Exclusionary List and the reasons for exclusion. The district court properly concluded that the evidence sought is only “generically relevant,” and that Park Place failed to show how the evidence is “essential” to oppose summary judgment. Because Park Place did not satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying Park Place’s request to defer ruling on summary judgment. Park Place also contends that the district court abused its discretion when it concluded that, even if Park Place had satisfied the Rule 56(f) requirements, it was not entitled to additional discovery because it failed to file timely motions to compel and extend discovery. See Mackey v. Pioneer Nat’l Bank, 867 F.2d 520, 524 (9th Cir. 1989) (explaining that a moving party is not entitled to additional discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) “if it fails diligently to pursue discovery before summary judgment”). We need not reach Park Place’s alternative assignment of error because we agree that Park Place failed to satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). AFFIRMED.