Opinion ID: 787242
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Judgment Without Deciding the Inlow Estate's Motion to Compel

Text: 49 A district court's entry of summary judgment before ruling on a pending motion to compel is a discovery matter that this court reviews for an abuse of discretion. Doty v. Ill. Central R.R. Co., 162 F.3d 460, 461 (7th Cir.1998). 50 Under Rule 56(f), [s]hould it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion 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. The Inlow Estate did not submit such an affidavit to the district court. Instead, it argued that the district court should compel Eurocopter to comply with aspects of the discovery plan in order to complete discovery. 51 Because the Inlow Estate failed to submit a Rule 56(f) affidavit, claiming that it could not adequately oppose the motion for summary judgment by reason of incomplete discovery, it was not an abuse of discretion by the district court to rule on the motion for summary judgment before the Inlow Estate was satisfied that all necessary discovery had occurred. See Chicago Florsheim Shoe Store Co. v. Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc., 826 F.2d 725, 727 (7th Cir.1987). Even when a non-moving party requests postponement of a motion for summary judgment to allow discovery, the failure to file an affidavit outlining [the party's] reasons for needing further discovery as contemplated by Rule 56(f) ... alone justifies affirmance[.] Woods v. City of Chicago, 234 F.3d 979, 990 (7th Cir.2000).