Opinion ID: 1192482
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motions Rulings

Text: Having determined that dismissal of Stone's claims against IMC was appropriate under these circumstances, we turn to his procedural complaints. Stone first argues that by not allowing him an opportunity to depose Ray Douglas or to oppose IMC's cross-motion for summary judgment despite a grant of a Civil Rule 56(f) extension of time, the court based its ruling on an incomplete picture of the facts of this case. Stone also complains that the superior court abused its discretion by failing to grant his motion to compel and by granting IMC's motion to stay discovery. In view of our conclusion that IMC was not, as a matter of law, the proper defendant to proceed against on these claims, it was not necessary for Stone to have an opportunity to perfect his factual allegations against IMC. Consequently, any error by the superior court in failing to properly facilitate development of the factual record in this case was harmless.