Opinion ID: 867629
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of Request for Additional Discovery

Text: We review a district court's denial of a request for additional discovery for abuse of discretion. Gualandi v. Adams, 385 F.3d 236, 244-45 (2d Cir. 2004). A party seeking -3- additional discovery to oppose summary judgment must submit an affidavit that demonstrates: (1) what facts are sought and how they are to be obtained, (2) how those facts are reasonably expected to create a genuine issue of material fact, (3) what effort affiant has made to obtain them, and (4) why the affiant was unsuccessful in those efforts. Meloff v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 51 F.3d 372, 375 (2d Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). Simao's affidavit, in this respect, consists largely of conclusory allegations that additional discovery was needed. The only detailed allegations are with respect to pre-workout conversations with Honda Finance representatives. Although the parties may have approached the workout with differing assumptions, for the reasons discussed below, those differences are irrelevant. As the district court has broad discretion to limit discovery in a prudential and proportionate way, EM Ltd. v. Rep. of Argentina, 695 F.3d 201, 207 (2d Cir. 2012), we conclude that it did not abuse its discretion by denying discovery here.