Opinion ID: 1443248
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Material Disputes of Fact

Text: The Districts argue that material disputes of fact precluded the district court from deciding Count II on summary judgment. Again, we disagree. Many of the facts the Districts suggest are material go to the contract claim, which we have already determined cannot be pursued at this late stage of the litigation. More importantly, the Districts failed to file a statement of disputed issues of material fact or an affidavit demonstrating the need for further discovery in the district court. For example, the Districts claim that the accuracy of the accounting DOI prepared at the direction of the district court was a disputed issue of fact that precluded summary judgment and necessitated further discovery. The district court rejected the Districts' objections to the accounting. In particular, the court was not persuaded by the Districts' concerns [about] possible factual disputes, pointing out that they failed to identify the parts of the accounting that they could not understand, failed to seek an explanation of those parts from DOI, declined informal opportunities to discover the facts that underlay the accountings, failed to request additional time to review the accounting, failed to attach an affidavit documenting the need for additional discovery, App., vol. VI at 1748, and thus failed to show a legitimate need for discovery, id. at 1749. Under FED.R.CIV.P. 56, a party opposing a motion for summary judgment may not rely merely on allegations or denials in its own pleading; rather, its response must... set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. If the opposing party does not so respond, summary judgment should, if appropriate, be entered against that party. FED.R.CIV.P. 56(e)(2). The rule specifically provides how an opposing party may comply with the rule if it needs discovery. 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 ... discovery to be undertaken; or (3) issue any other just order. FED. R.CIV.P. 56(f). As we have made clear, the nonmovant must carry its burden in the district court in a timely fashion pursuant to Rule 56(e) ... or explain why it cannot pursuant to Rule 56(f). Otherwise, the nonmovant acts, or fails to act, at its peril. Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 672 (10th Cir.1998) (internal citation omitted); see also Hackworth v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 468 F.3d 722, 732 (10th Cir.2006) (A nonmoving party wishing to invoke the protections of Rule 56(f) must attempt to do so by submitting an affidavit in direct response to a motion for summary judgment, not following the district court's disposition of that motion.). Given the Districts' failure to comply with Rule 56, the district court's determination in favor of DOI was entirely proper.