Opinion ID: 1191765
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inadequate Opportunity for Discovery

Text: 21. Plaintiffs also contend that the trial court erred when it proceeded with the summary judgment motion before ruling on their motion to compel further discovery. As a result, Plaintiffs argue that they did not have an adequate opportunity to conduct further discovery into Chevron's control over the station. 22. We have reviewed the record thoroughly and conclude that Plaintiffs have failed to preserve the issue for appeal. To preserve a question for review it must appear that a ruling or decision by the district court was fairly invoked.... NMRA 1996, 12-216(A). One preserves an issue for appeal by invoking a ruling from the court on the question, State v. Hodge, 118 N.M. 410, 882 P.2d 1 (1994) (emphasis in original), the purpose of which is to alert the trial court to a claim of error and give the court an opportunity to correct any mistake. Diversified Dev. & Inv. v. Heil, 119 N.M. 290, 295, 889 P.2d 1212, 1213 (1995). In their response to summary judgment, Plaintiffs did not notify the trial court that they were hampered in their discovery efforts, and they did not request a continuance until such time as their motion to compel discovery was decided. Although the discovery disputes were discussed at the time of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs' counsel specifically requested that the trial court stick to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs did not indicate to the trial court that a decision on the motion for summary judgment would be premature because further discovery was necessary. By not indicating to the trial court that its resolution of the motion for summary judgment should be deferred until the court had resolved any discovery issues, Plaintiffs waived any issue on appeal.