Opinion ID: 613512
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Plaintiff’s Motion for a Continuance

Text: Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n v. Bankcard Holders of Am., 784 F.2d 1472, 1475–76 (9th Cir. 1986), we hold that the district court properly denied Plaintiff’s motion for a continuance pursuant to Federal Rule 6 of Civil Procedure 56(f).1 At the time the district court ruled on Plaintiff’s motion, Rule 56(f) provided, in pertinent part: If a party opposing the motion shows by affidavit that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) deny the motion; (2) order a continuance to enable affidavits to be obtained, depositions to be taken, or other discovery to be undertaken; or (3) issue any other just order. A party requesting a continuance pursuant to Rule 56(f) must identify by affidavit the specific facts that further discovery would reveal, and explain why those facts would preclude summary judgment. Tatum v. City of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff requested the continuance so that he might depose Defendant Coulter to discover why and when the investigation was initiated. Defendant Coulter’s motives, however, are immaterial to whether Plaintiff’s claims are time- 1 Rule 56 has been amended since the district court rendered its decision in 2009. The text of Rule 56(f) was simplified and now appears as Rule 56(d). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, advisory committee’s notes (2010 amends.) (Subdivision (d) carries forward without substantial change the provisions of former subdivision (f).). 7 barred. Also, because the investigation necessarily preceded Plaintiff’s arrest in 2005, the precise date of its initiation is likewise immaterial. See id. (holding that the specific facts to be obtained through discovery must be material). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Plaintiff’s request for a continuance. AFFIRMED. 8