Opinion ID: 1318031
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Appellant's Point VI:

Text: VI. Plaintiff made an adequate showing of unavailability of affidavits to be entitled to relief under Rule 56(f). Rule 56(f), W.R.C.P., provides: (f) When Affidavits Are Unavailable. Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that he cannot for reasons stated present by affidivit facts essential to justify his 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. We do not find merit in the appellant's position that he should have had relief under Rule 56(f), and the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing it. We have read and re-read attorney Hawkins' affidavit and the supporting letters of the California doctors. In the first place, the last-mentioned doctors do not charge the Casper doctors and hospital with negligence and malpractice or with violating any medical-care and treatment standards. In the second place, if those doctors were prepared to make such charges, there was adequate time for them to prepare factual affidavits in which conclusions to that effect could be expressed. No such affidavits were executed and there was no good and adequate showing that the affidavits were unavailable and why summary judgment should not be entered.