Opinion ID: 687344
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: CCHR's Discovery Request

Text: 15 Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f), 16 [s]hould it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion [for summary judgment] that the party cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify the party's opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just. 17 This Court reviews the district court's denial of a Rule 56(f) application under the abuse of discretion standard. See VISA Int'l Serv. Ass'n v. Bankcard Holders of Am., 784 F.2d 1472, 1475 (9th Cir.1986). 18 Summary judgment is appropriate when the record demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Having found that the FDA's search was reasonable and that its Vaughn Index was adequate, the district court determined that the FDA had satisfied its burden of establishing that the requested documents were exempt from disclosure. If the affidavits contain reasonably detailed descriptions of the documents and allege facts sufficient to establish an exemption, the district court need look no further. Lewis v. IRS, 823 F.2d 375, 378 (9th Cir.1987) (quotation omitted). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting summary judgment before allowing CCHR the opportunity to conduct additional discovery.